CORPORATEPOLITICALACTIVISM:

Whenandhowshouldcompaniestakeapoliticalstand?

MAGGIECLEMENSEN

MasterofArts,StrategicCommunication

UniversityofMinnesota

CAPSTONEPROJECT

MAY20,2017

CLEMENSEN

2

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR..............................................................................................................3

EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................5

LITERATUREREVIEW..............................................................................................................7

CorporateSocialResponsibilityDefinitions......................................................................................7TheImpactsofCorporateSocialResponsibility................................................................................8PoliticalTheoriesofCorporateSocialResponsibility.......................................................................11MillennialsandCSR........................................................................................................................12WhatisCorporatePoliticalActivism?.............................................................................................13FunctionalTheoryofAttitudes.......................................................................................................15

RESEARCHQUESTIONSANDHYPOTHESES.............................................................................19

METHOD...............................................................................................................................21

Measures.......................................................................................................................................22

RESULTS................................................................................................................................25

AttitudesandBehaviorstowardCompaniesthattakePoliticalStances..........................................25AttitudinalFunctionsandCorporatePoliticalActivism...................................................................32

DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................34

Results...........................................................................................................................................34Limitations.....................................................................................................................................37

STRATEGICIMPLICATIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................40

Step1:KnowthyEmployees..........................................................................................................43Step2:KnowthyConsumers..........................................................................................................45Step3:KnowthyCause..................................................................................................................47Step4:KnowthyStance.................................................................................................................49ASometimes-UnavoidableRisk......................................................................................................50

CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................52

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................56

APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................69

ConsentForm.................................................................................................................................69Survey............................................................................................................................................70

CLEMENSEN

3

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

MaggieClemensenisaSeniorStrategicAnalystatRabbit,astrategicconsultingfirmin

Minneapolisthatspecializesinbrandstrategyandplanning.Maggiehasalwaysbeeninterested

inconsumerbehaviorandattitude,whichiswhatdrewhertoaccountplanningandstrategy.

Priortoshiftinghercareertostrategy,Maggieworkedfirstasaninteractivedesignerandart

directoratanadvertisingagency.TheM.A.inStrategicCommunicationcombinedwithher

designbackgroundhasprovidedastrongfoundationforstudyingandinterpretingconsumer

behavior.

CLEMENSEN

4

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Thisprojectexamineshowconsumersfeelaboutcompaniestakingpoliticalstancesand

offersrecommendationsonhowcompaniescanstrategicallypracticecorporatepolitical

activism(CPA).Anin-depthlookatpreviousliteratureinthefieldofcorporatesocial

responsibilitygroundstheresearchstudyandactsasaproxytounderstandinghowconsumers

mightbehavetowardcompaniesthattakeCPAactions.Theaimofthisstudyistohelp

companiesdevelopaprocesstofollowwhenconsideringtakingapoliticalstance.Theprimary

researchquestionis:WhatistherelationshipbetweenCPAandconsumerattitudestoward

companies?Thesecondaryquestionis:Whatattitudinalfunctionsdoactionsofcorporate

politicalactivismfulfillforcustomers?Anonlinesurveywasconductedmeasuringperceptions

andattitudestowardcompaniesthatpracticeCPA.Afour-stepprocessfortakingapolitical

stanceissharedattheendofthestudyasanapproachforstrategiccommunicatorstouse

whendeterminingthebestdecisionontakingapoliticalstance.

CLEMENSEN

5

INTRODUCTION InFebruaryof2017,thenationaldepartmentstoreNordstromchosetodiscontinuethe

fashionlineofIvankaTrump,thedaughterofPresidentDonaldTrump.Manyofthe

departmentstore’scustomersandnon-customerssawthisactasapoliticalstatementagainst

thecontroversialpresidentandhisfamily.EvenPresidentDonaldTrumpcommentedon

Twitterabouttheincident.AfterNordstromdroppedIvankaTrump’sclothingline,thousands

ofpeoplelashedoutattheretailerthrougha“BoycottNordstrom”socialmediacampaign.

However,priortothisspecificboycott,Nordstromwasbeingboycottedbypeopleontheother

sideoftheissueforcarryingthelineinthefirstplace(Creswell&Abrams,2017).

Othercompanieshavealsoexperiencedintensebacklashforpoliticallycharged

statementsthatrepresentativesofthecompanieshavemade,particularlyinreferenceto

PresidentTrump.TheCEOoftheactivewearcompanyUnderArmourcalledPresidentTrumpa

“realasset”tothecountry,andwithinhours,thousandswerereactingunderthehashtag

“#boycottUnderArmour”(Creswell&Abrams,2017).Theonlinecampaign“GrabYourWallet”

hasbeensetupspecificallytoboycottcompaniesassociatedinanywaywiththeTrump

company(Grynbaum&Maheshwari,2017).Around32,000peoplevisitthewebsiteofthe

campaigneveryhour,accordingtoitsfounder,ShannonCoulter(Abrams,2017).

Otherissueshavealsocausedactiviststolashout,suchasgaymarriageortransgender

bathrooms.RetailerTargetannouncedin2016thatitwouldallowtransgenderpeopletouse

whicheverbathroomwithwhichtheyidentify.Thisnewpolicywasannouncedinresponseto

NorthCarolina’slawregulatingbathroomusebybiologicalgender.AfterTarget’s

announcement,thesocialmediahashtag#FlushTargetgainedtraction,andoveramillion

CLEMENSEN

6

peoplesignedapledgetoboycottthecompanybytheAmericanFamilyAssociation(Halzack,

2016).Toreducecustomers’concernoverthepolicy,Targethasdecidedtospend$20million

toinstallsingle-occupantrestroomsinanylocationthatdoesnotalreadyhavethem,allowinga

separatespacefortransgendercustomerstouseiftheydonotfeelcomfortableusingthe

bathroomthatcorrespondswiththeirbiologicalgender(Isidore,2016).

Fast-foodcompanyChic-fil-AalsoexperiencedboycottsduetostatementsitsCEOmade

againstgaymarriagein2012(O’Connor,2014).AfterCEODanCathymadepublicstatements

abouthisbeliefin“traditionalmarriage,”protestersshowedupatChick-fil-Alocationsacross

theU.S.Cathyhassinceapologizedformakingthestatementsandbringingthecompanyinto

thepoliticalfrayaroundtheissueofgaymarriage(O’Connor,2014).

Theseexamplesshowthatinourhighlypoliticized,socialmedia-focusedworld,

companiesarestrugglingtomakesenseofwheretheystandonissuesandhowtoavoid

boycottsandprotests.Asmoreandmorecompaniesarefeelingpressuretomakepolitical

statementsoncontroversialpoliticalissues(termedcorporatepoliticalactivismbytheauthor

ofthisresearch),orarefindingthemselvesinthecross-hairswithoutmeaningtogetinvolved,

moreresearchinthisareawillneedtobeundertakentofullyhelpcompaniesnavigatethese

treacherouswaters.Thisstudyisonestepinthatdirectionofresearch,openingthedoorfor

furtherstudiesandinterestinthistopic.

CLEMENSEN

7

LITERATUREREVIEW Duetothenewphenomenonofthespecifictopicofthispaper,littlepreviousliterature

existstoexplainitfully.However,severalothercloselyrelatedtopicshavebeenstudied

extensivelyandcanbeexaminedinordertogainabetterunderstandingofcorporatepolitical

activism.Thesetopicsincludeelementsofcorporatesocialresponsibility,suchaspoliticalCSR

theoriesandcorporatesocialadvocacy.Thefunctionaltheory,whichhasbeenstudied

extensively,canalsobeemployedinordertohelpcompanieschoosemessagingtomatch

consumers’attitudinalfunctionswhentakingapoliticalstance.

CorporateSocialResponsibilityDefinitions

Inthelastdecade,CSRhasbecomealargerfocusofmanycorporations,withbillionsof

dollarspouringintoCSRefforts(Becchetti,Ciciretti,Hasan,&Kobeissi,2011).Duetothe

increasedinterestinCSReffortsbybothconsumersandinvestors,theacademicworldhas

focusedalotofeffortandattentiononthisareaofstudy.Muchoftheliteratureinthisarea

broadlydefinescorporatesocialresponsibility(CSR)asacompany’sactivitiesinrelationto

perceivedsocietalobligations(Torelli,Monga,&Kaikati,2011;SenandBhattacharya,2011).

Mostoftheliteraturedoesagree,however,thatCSRisinfactabroadcategory,whichmeans

theactivitiesandobligationsreferredtoabovehavevariousmeanings.Forexample,muchof

theearlierliteratureinthefieldfocusesprimarilyoninternalactions,suchbusinessethics,asa

formofcorporatesocialresponsibility.AstudyofCSRwouldnotbecompletewithout

mentioningCarroll’sCSRmodel(Carroll,1979).HismodelbreaksCSRintofourmaincategories.

Theseinclude(1)theeconomicalresponsibilitiesoforganizationstobeprofitable;(2)thelegal

CLEMENSEN

8

responsibilitiesoforganizationstofollowalllaws;(3)theethicalresponsibilitiesof

organizationstodowhatisethicallyright;and(4)thephilanthropicresponsibilitiesof

companiestoengageinactivitiesthatbenefitsocietyandcauses(Carroll,1979).Later

literature,however,primarilyfocusesmoreonthelasttwocategoriesofCarroll’smodel,the

externalactivitiesofcorporationsinrelationtoethicsandphilanthropy,suchasaligningwith

certaincharitablecauses.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,thispaperwillfocusmoreonthelater

definitionsofCSRthattakealookatthemoreexternalactivitiesofcorporationsinrelationto

socialandpoliticalcausesbecausethisdefinitionismorepertinenttothetopicofthisresearch

study.

TheImpactsofCorporateSocialResponsibility

TheliteraturemainlyagreesthatCSReffortspositivelyaffectthefinancialperformance

ofacompany.Sources,however,varyonthelevelofthepositiveimpactandtheclearreturn

oninvestmentforcorporations.ResearchbyDoh,Howton,Howton,andSiegel(2010)suggests

thatinvestorscareabouttheCSRinitiativesoforganizations.Theirstudyshowedthatinvestors

willexitinvestmentsifanorganizationfailstofollowthroughonCSRinitiatives,butdidnotsee

anincreaseinentryintoinvestmentsbecauseofCSRinitiatives(Dohetal.,2010).Becchetti,

Ciciretti,Hasan,andKobeissireplicatedDohetal.’sstudyonagranderscaleandfoundsimilar

results(2011).TheReportonSociallyResponsibleInvestingTrendsintheUnitedStates(2016)

alsoshowsthatoneinnineinvesteddollarsisinvestedintoportfoliosthatareconsidered

sociallyresponsible(TheForumforSustainableandResponsibleInvestment,2016).Astudyby

CLEMENSEN

9

FombrunandShanley(1990)alsofoundthatcompaniescanincreasetheirbrandreputation

throughCSReffortsandthenusethatincreasedreputationtochargemoreforproducts.

ManyofthestudiesinCSRhavefocusedontheeffectsofCSRonconsumerbehaviors,

particularlyintenttopurchase.Oneofthefirststudiesexaminingconsumerpurchasedecisions

inrelationtocompanies’CSReffortstookplacein2001andwasconductedbyMohr,Webb,

andHarris.ThisstudydefinesCSRas“acompany’scommitmenttominimizingoreliminating

anyharmfuleffectsandmaximizingitslong-runbeneficialimpactonsociety”(Mohr,etal.,

2001)andusesthisdefinitionasthebasisforitsin-depthinterviewswithforty-eight

consumers.Thisstudyrevealedthatoverall,mostrespondentsdonotuseCSReffortsasa

factorindecidingwhethertopurchasefromacompany.Inthecourseofthestudy,however,

Mohretal.determinedthatasmallbutarticulategroupofconsumerspracticewhatthe

authorscall“SociallyResponsibleConsumerBehavior(SRCB)”(Mohretal.,2001).Thistermis

definedas“apersonbasinghisorheracquisition,usage,anddispositionofproductsona

desiretominimizeoreliminateanyharmfuleffectsandmaximizethelong-runbeneficial

impactonsociety”(Mohretal.,2001,pg.47).Thestudyalsopointsoutthatthemore

knowledgeableaboutsocietalissuesandcompanies’CSReffortsaconsumeris,heorshewill

bemorelikelytopracticeSRCB.Anotherfindingofthisstudysuggeststhatconsumersaremore

likelytoboycottcompaniesthattheyperceivetobeactingsociallyirresponsible.Thisstudy

suggeststhatalthoughconsumersarenotaswillingtosearchoutcompaniesthatsupport

causestheybelievein,consumersaremorethanwillingtostopbuyingaproductifitgoes

againstcausestheysupport.

CLEMENSEN

10

ThisleadstoanareacoveredextensivelyintheliteratureonCSR:thedegreeoffit

betweenthecompanyandtheCSRactivity.AstudyconductedbyBecker-Olsen,Cudmore,and

Hilldemonstratedthatwhenconsumersfeltacorporation’ssocialresponsibilitymeasuresdid

notfitwiththecorporation’sbusinessobjectives,theCSReffortactuallybecamealiability

(Becker-Olsenetal.,2005).KirkOlson,VPofTrendSightsatHorizonMedia,stated,“The

connectionbetweenthebrandandthecausehastobeclearandbelievable.Ifit’snot

immediatelyunderstandabletotheconsumer,brandsrisklookingliketheir[consumer

responsibility]effortismoreofamarketingtacticthanagenuinecommitmentspringingfrom

thebrand’sownmission”(Faw,2014).AsmorecompaniesareadoptingCSRefforts,

consumersarebecomingincreasinglycriticalofthevalidityofthoseCSReffortsinrelationto

thecompany’sactualvalues.

SimilartoMohretal.’sstudy,muchoftheliteraturealsosuggeststhatconsumerswillin

factbemorelikelytopunishcompaniesthattheybelieveareinsincereintheirsocial

involvement(Becker-Olsenetal.,2005).SenandBhattacharya’sstudyshowedthatwhenthere

wasabiggerdifferencebetweenacompany’svaluesanditsCSRactivities,themorenegative

theCSRactivitiescouldbetoconsumerbeliefsofthequalityofthecompany’sproducts(2001).

Becker-Olsenetal.’sstudyalsosuggestedthat52percentofrespondentswouldboycotta

companyforactinginsincerelywhenitcomestoCSRefforts(Becker-Olsenetal.,2005,pg.52).

SkepticismhastakenholdofconsumersinrelationtoCSRasmorecompanieshave

beguntouseitasamarketingtactic.Bronnwrites,“Sophisticatedcustomersandstakeholders

arelookingatthebehaviorofthefirm;aretheydonatingjusttogaingoodwilloraretheytruly

concernedaboutparticularissues?”(Bronn,2001).ManyconsumersfeelthatCSReffortsare

CLEMENSEN

11

self-servingforcompanies,accordingtoresearchbyMohretal.(2006).Mohretal.’sstudy

suggeststhatthisskepticismhasdevelopedbecauseconsumershaveseencompaniesattempt

touseCSReffortstobuytheirwayoutofnegativepublicity(2006).Theyproposethatas

knowledgeofthedetailsofacompany’sCSReffortsincreases,skepticismcandecrease.Bronn

positsthatCSReffortscanhaveapositiveeffect,butonlyundercertainconditions:“Onlya

consistent,believablecontributiontoacause(ornon–profitorganization)canbuildbrand

imageandbrandequity”(Bronn,2001,p.6).

PoliticalTheoriesofCorporateSocialResponsibility Agroupoftheoriesexplorethepoliticalimplicationsandresponsibilitiesofcompanies

astheyrelatetoCSRefforts,whichhelpstofurtherlearningaboutcorporatepoliticalactivism,

thefocusofthisresearch.PoliticaltheoriesofCSRbeganbackin1960withDavis’sexploration

ofthepowerthatcompanieshaveinsocietyandthepoliticalimpactsofthesepowers(Davis,

1960).Davissuggestedthatcorporationspossessalotofpowertochangethemarketplaceand

thereforecanusethatpowertoenactsocialchange.Heassertedthatthemorebusinesspower

acorporationhas,themoreresponsibilityithastosociety.Hewrote,“Whoeverdoesnotuse

hissocialpowerresponsiblywillloseit.Inthelongrunthosewhodonotusepowerina

mannerwhichsocietyconsidersresponsiblewilltendtoloseitbecauseothergroupseventually

willstepintoassumethoseresponsibilities’’(Davis,1960,p.63).

Later,inthe1980s,theterm“corporatecitizenship”begantobeexploredbyCSR

researchers(Matten&Crane,2005).Carrollnarrowlydefinedcorporatecitizenship(1991)in

termsofhisfourthcategoryofCSR,philanthropicresponsibility(Carroll,1979).ToCarroll,being

CLEMENSEN

12

agoodcorporatecitizenmeantpurelyfulfillingthosephilanthropicresponsibilities.An

extendedviewofcorporatecitizenshipwasproposedbyMattenetal.in2003.Theirdefinition

ofcorporatecitizenshipsuggeststhatcompaniesshouldenterintocitizenshipwhen

governmentsfailintheirdutytoprotectaspectsofconsumercitizenshiporrights.Thisview

hasappearedassomecompanieshavegraduallybecomemorepowerfulthangovernmentsin

certainpartsoftheworld(Mattenetal.,2003).

MillennialsandCSR Asthegenerationbornbetween1981and1997,henceforthcalledMillennials,has

maturedanddevelopedintoahugeforceinthemarketplace,corporationshavebeenfocusing

onthissegment(Fry,2015).Accordingtothe2016U.S.CensusBureau,Millennialshave

surpassedthebabyboomergenerationbynearly3millionat75.4millionintheU.S.(U.S.

CensusBureau,2016).Thisgenerationalsorepresents$300billioninannualspending

accordingtothe2016MillennialImpactReport(MillennialImpactReport,2016).This

generation’spowerinthemarketplacecannotbeoverlookedbycorporationsmovingforward.

MuchofthepreviousliteratureexploringCSRandMillennialsprimarilyexaminesCSRas

anopportunityforbusinessestobetterattractandmaintainMillennialsasemployees.This

generationhasoftenbeendescribedas“civic-minded”(McGloneetal.,2008).Astudyby

Cone,Inc.andAMPInsights,conductedonlinewith1,800Millennials,lookedattheroleCSR

playsinMillennials’livesasemployeesandconsumers(2006).Thisstudyfoundthat61percent

ofMillennialsfeel“personallyresponsibleformakingadifferenceintheworld”(Cone,2006).

ThemajorityofMillennials,79percent,alsowanttoworkforacompanythatcaresaboutits

CLEMENSEN

13

contributionstosociety(Cone,2006).Anotherinterestingfindingfromthestudystatesthat69

percentofMillennialswouldrefusetoworkforacompanythatisnotsociallyresponsible

(Cone,2006).Millennialshavealsobeenfoundwillingtorewardorpunishcompaniesbasedon

theircommitmenttosocialcauses(McGloneetal.,2008).Otherstudiescorroboratethese

findingsandsuggestthatMillennialswantmeaningfulworkexperiencesandcloselyexamine

companies’valuesandmissionsinordertofindcompaniestheycanfeelgoodaboutworking

for(Ng,Schweitzer,&Lyons,2010).

Accordingtopreviousliterature,asconsumers,Millennialsalsolookforcompaniesthat

aremakingadifferenceintheworld.AccordingtotheGlobalCorporateSustainabilityReport

conductedbyNielson,73percentofMillennialssaytheyarewillingtopaymoreforaproduct

fromasustainablecompany.Astaggering81percentofMillennialssaytheyexpectcompanies

tomakeapubliccommitmenttocorporatecitizenshipmeasures(Nielson,2015).These

findingsillustratetheimportancethatCSReffortshaveinthemindsofMillennialsandthe

impactstheycanhaveforcompaniesincementingarelationshipwiththisgeneration.

WhatisCorporatePoliticalActivism? Theauthorofthisresearchsuggeststhatcorporatepoliticalactivismisasubsetof

corporatesocialresponsibility.Corporatepoliticalactivismcanbedefinedas“whenacompany

actsinresponsetocontroversialpoliticaltopics.”ThisdefinitionisadaptedfromDoddand

Supa’sdefinitionofcorporatesocialadvocacy(CSA).TheydefineCSAas“organizationalstances

onsocial-politicalissues”(Dodd&Supa,2014).However,thisdefinitiondoesnotfully

encapsulatetheessenceoftheissueathandinthemindofthisresearcher.Thispresentstudy

CLEMENSEN

14

hasnarrowedthetermtofocusprimarilyonthepoliticalactionsoforganizationsandhighlights

thecontroversialnatureoftheissues.Theterm“activism”moreaccuratelyportraysthe

situationthan“advocacy”aswell.Merriam-Webster'sdictionarydefines“activism”as“a

doctrineorpracticethatemphasizesdirectvigorousactionespeciallyinsupportofor

oppositiontoonesideofacontroversialissue”(“Activism”,2017).Thetermcorporatepolitical

activismalsoexpandsonthetermusedinmarketingandadvertisingtradepublications,brand

activism(Armano,2017;Freeman,2017;McDermott,2017).Bysimplysaying“brandactivism,”

thefullpictureisnotquitedeveloped,whichiswhytheauthorofthisstudyexpandeditto

“corporatepoliticalactivism.”Tohelpfurtherexplainthesubtledifferencebetweenthesetwo

concepts,examplesofeachwillbediscussed.Anexampleofcorporatesocialadvocacy

includeswhenacorporationtakesanon-confrontationalstanceonanissuethatdoesnotcause

controversyandisgenerallyacceptedbythepublic,suchasadvocatingforenvironmental

issuessuchasusingsustainablepackaging,likeBurt’sBees.Corporatesocialadvocacyhasa

morepositiveconnotation;thecompanyissupportingacause,whichalignswiththedefinition

oftheword“advocacy”.However,corporatepoliticalactivismtakesamorenegativeapproach,

typicallyspeakingoutagainstorinresponsetopoliticalissuesthattendtobemore

controversial,suchasmakinganegativestatementinresponsetolegislaturepassedona

controversialissuelikegaymarriage.Theword“activism”hastakenonamorenegative

connotation,whichmoreaccuratelydescribestheconceptstudiedinthisproject.

CSRdiffersfromcorporatepoliticalactivism(CPA)inthatCSReffortsareplannedefforts

thatcontributebothtothecompany’sbusinessobjectivesaswellassocialresponsibilitiesofa

brand(Dodd&Supa,2015).CPAactions,however,tendtooccurinrelationtocontroversial

CLEMENSEN

15

politicaltopics,sometimesunrelatedtothecompany’scorebusinessobligations(Dodd&Supa,

2015).Forexample,anCSRactivitywouldbefast-foodrestaurantChic-Fil-A’screationofits

Chic-Fil-AFoundation,whichcreatesscholarshipsforunderprivilegedyouth.Anexampleofa

CPAactivitywouldbewhenChic-Fil-A’sCEOexpressedanti-gaymarriagestatementsinthe

midstofpublicdiscussionsaroundthelegalizationofgaymarriage(O’Connor,2014).

FunctionalTheoryofAttitudes Thefunctionaltheoryofattitudeswasdevelopedin1960byDanielKatz.Histheory

suggeststhatattitudesservespecificfunctionsforpeopleinlife.Histheorydividesthese

attitudesintofourfunctions:1)utilitarian;2)knowledge;3)ego-defensive;and4)value-

expressive(Katz,1960).Theseattitudesarestimulatedbyspecificcuesthatvarybetweenthe

fourfunctions.Modifyingattitudescanoccurthroughremovingorchangingthesecues.

Attitudeshavebeenwidelystudiedinthefieldofpsychology,andthefieldhaseven

beenconsidered“thestudyofattitudes”(Sherif&Cantril,1945).Typically,thestudyof

attitudeshastakenathree-partview,lookingatbeliefs,feelings,andbehaviors(Eagley&

Chaiken,1993).Twoschoolsofthoughtinitiallydevelopedinrelationtoattitudes:structuralists

andfunctionalists(Fazio&Olson,2003).Thestructuralistsbelievedthatpsychologyshould

mainlydescribeattitudes,whilefunctionaliststhoughtpsychologyshouldattemptto

understandtheunderlyingprocessesthehumanmindundertakestoformthoseattitudesin

thefirstplace(Fazio&Olson,2003).Katzdevelopedasoneofthefirstmajorthought-leaders

inthefunctionalistcamp.

Katzdefinesattitudesas“thepredispositionoftheindividualtoevaluatesomesymbol

oraspectofhisworldinafavorableorunfavorablemanner”(Katz,1960,pg.168).Healso

CLEMENSEN

16

statesthatattitudesincludebothaffectiveandthecognitiveelements.Theaffectiveelementis

thecorelikeordislikesomeonefeelstowardsomething.Thecognitiveelementsthatdescribe

theobjectoftheattitude,itscharacteristicsanditsrelationshiptootherobjects(Katz,1960).

Thesetwoareasareoftentargetedseparatelytoenactbehaviorchange.Rosenberg’sstudies

showedthatbychangingoneelementwillleadtoachangeintheotherelement(seeninKatz,

1960).Forexample,tochangesomeone’sbehavioracompanymightattempttogetthat

persontolikethemanddislikeitsopponent,targetingtheaffectiveelement.Forthecognitive

element,acompanywouldattempttochangepeoples’knowledgeaboutatopicinapositive

way,thuschangingtheirattitudetowardthecompany.

Buildingonthisbodyofknowledge,Katzdevelopedhisfourfunctionsthatattitudes

serveforpeople.Hewrites,“Unlessweknowthepsychologicalneedwhichismetbythe

holdingofanattitudeweareinapoorpositiontopredictwhenandhowitwillchange”(Katz,

1960,pg.170).Hisutilitarian(sometimescalledadjustive)functionofattitudescanbe

explainedaswhenpeopleholdcertainattitudestoavoidpunishmentandmaximizerewards.

Forexample,aconsumerwhoholdsafavorableattitudetowardacompanythatsupportsa

causethatwouldbenefitthatconsumerisholdingautilitarianattitude.

Forhissecondattitudefunction,Katzsuggeststhatattitudescanprotectusfrom

acknowledgingbasictruthsaboutourselvesortheharshrealitiesoflife,whichfulfillstheego-

defensivefunction.Hestatesthathumansspendagreatdealoftimeandenergyon“living

withthemselves”(Katz,1960,pg.172).Insecuritiesandinternalconflictsmakeusdevelop

defensemechanismsintheformoffeelingsorattitudesofsuperiorityoverothergroups.This

functioncanalsodevelopintheformofdenialoverthedangerstheworldholdsforpeople.By

CLEMENSEN

17

denyingthesefeelingsanddevelopingattitudesofsuperiority,peoplecandefendtheiregos

anddenytheirfeelingsofinsecurity.

Katz’thirdfunction,thevalue-expressivefunction,worksalmostinoppositiontothe

ego-defensivefunctioninthatithelpsindividualsexpresstheirvaluesanddisplaythetypeof

peopletheybelievetheyare.Insteadofdefendingone’sego,thevalue-expressivefunction

tendstostokeegobymakingpeoplefeelgoodaboutthemselvesandthevaluestheyhold.

Katzpointsoutthatself-imageandpersonalclarityareveryimportanttohumans,startingfrom

ayoungage(Katz,1960).Value-expressiveattitudesallowustoexpresswhoweareandwho

wewanttobebothtoourselvesandothers.

Thefinalfunction,theknowledgefunctionsuggeststhatpeopleneedcertainattitudes

inordertomakesenseofourchaoticandsometimesunorganizedworld.Certainattitudes

thenbecometheframesofreferencebywhichpeoplemakesenseofsituations.Katzpoints

outthatthirstforknowledgeisnotforthesakeofknowledgeinitself,butmainlyforthe

purposeofunderstandingthesituationsthatdirectlyimpacttheirlives.Stereotypes,for

example,areattitudesbasedoncertaininformationwehavelearnedandhelpusmakesense

ofpeopleoreventswithwhichwedonothavedirectexperience.

Katz’sfunctionaltheoryofattitudeshassincebeenextensivelystudiedandusedin

communicationandmarketingresearch.RossiterandPercyusedthefunctionaltheoryto

explorehowbrandattitudescanbeformedbasedonattributesunrelatedtotheproductitself,

andinsteadbasedonsymbolicbenefitstotheconsumersthatmatchwithKatz’sfunctions

(1987).Fournier’sstudylookedatthereasonsbehindlong-timerelationshipscustomershave

withbrands,usingKatz’svalue-expressivefunctionasareasonformaintainingcertain

CLEMENSEN

18

relationships(1981).LutzfurtheredKatz’stheorybyaddinganexpectancyvalueindexwhich

measurestheamounttowhichaparticularfunctionisinfluencingthatattitudebyanalyzingthe

cognitiveandaffectivevaluesoftheoverallattitude(1981).Lutz’sfindingsalsosuggestthatas

faraspurchasingdecisionsgo,theutilitarianandvalue-expressivefunctionswillbemost

influentialindeterminingwhatconsumerswillpurchase.Theego-defensiveandknowledge

functionswillbelessinfluential.Ego-defensiveattitudesapplymoretosocialissues

surroundingtheconsumerthanpurchasedecisions,andtheknowledgefunctionwillonlybe

influentialinrelationtonewproductsandservices(Lutz,1981).

AstudybyBelchandBelchtestedwhetherLutz’smodelcouldactuallybeusedin

measuringfunctionalattitudesbylookingatboycottersandnon-boycottersofconsumer

products(1987).TheirstudyfoundLutz’smodela“viablewayofdealingwiththe

operationalizationproblemthathaslimitedtheapplicationoffunctionaltheorytostudiesof

attitudesandattitudechange”(Belch&Belch,1987,pg.235).Theirstudyalsofoundthatfor

non-boycotters,theutilitarianfunction,fulfilledbytheproductbenefits,impactedattitudesthe

most.Forboycotters,thecorporateimagefunction,afunctionaddedbyBelchandBelch,was

foundtobethestrongestmotivatorfortheattitudestheconsumersheld.Theauthorsdescribe

thecorporateimagefunctionastheattributesorcharacteristicsofcompaniesthatinform

selectionofabrand(Belch&Belch,1987).

Thisbodyofpreviousliteraturehelpsinformthisresearchstudybyactingsomewhatas

aproxyforthisnewlyconceptualizedphenomenon.Bylookingatthepreviousliteratureinthe

fieldofCSR,thisstudyhopestousesomeofthefindingsofpreviousresearcherstobetter

understandandpredicthowconsumersbehaveinrelationtocorporatepoliticalactivism.

CLEMENSEN

19

RESEARCHQUESTIONSANDHYPOTHESES Thecurrentresearchseekstodeterminehowcorporatepoliticalactivismimpacts

consumerattitudestowardcompanies.Fewstudieshavebeenconductedinthisspecificareaof

study,whichhasemergedasanewphenomenoninthelastcoupleyears.Thisstudyapplies

conceptsfromtheliteratureofcorporatesocialresponsibilityandthefunctionaltheoryof

attitudestomeasureconsumerattitudestowardcompaniesthatexhibitcorporatepolitical

activism.First,thecurrentstudyattemptstounderstandconsumerfeelingsaboutifandwhen

companiesshouldtakepoliticalstances.Thefollowingresearchquestionisthereforeposed:

RQ1:Whatistherelationshipbetweencorporatepoliticalactivism(CPA)andconsumer

attitudestowardcompanies?

PriorresearchinCSRsuggeststhatconsumersholdafavorableopiniontowardCSRmeasuresas

longastheyfitwithinthecompany’sbusinessobjectives(Faw,2014).Usingthispriorresearch

asaproxyforhowconsumerswillbehavetowardactionsofcorporatepoliticalactivism,the

followinghypothesesareadvanced:

H1a:Ipredictthatconsumersholdfavorableattitudestowardcompaniesthattakestances

onpoliticalissuesintherealmoftheirbusinessobjectives.

H1b:IalsopredictthatMillennials,inparticular,feelmorefavorablytowardcompaniesthat

demonstrateCPA.

CLEMENSEN

20

Inordertofurtherunderstandhowconsumersformattitudestowardcompaniesthattakea

politicalstance,thisresearchstudywilldeterminewhichoftheattitudinalfunctionsare

activatedbycorporatepoliticalactivism.Thesefunctionswillbemeasuredinbothaninstance

whenthepoliticalstancealignswithconsumers’politicalvaluesandwhenitdoesnotalignwith

theirpoliticalvalues.Asecondaryresearchquestionisposedtomeasurethis:

RQ2:Whatattitudinalfunctionsdoactionsofcorporatepoliticalactivismfulfillfor

customers?

Previousliteraturesuggeststhatinresponsetoanegativestimuli,theego-defensiveand

utilitarianattitudefunctionsaremostactivated.Inresponsetoapositivestimuli,however,the

value-expressiveandknowledgefunctionsbecomeactivated(Lutz,1981;Belch&Belch,1987).

Basedonthispreviousresearch,thefollowinghypothesesareadvanced:

H2a:Ipredictthatwhenacompany’sCPAactionsareinoppositiontoconsumers’beliefs,the

ego-defensiveandutilitarianattitudinalfunctionswillbethemostactive.

H2b:Whenacompany’sCPAactionsareinagreementwithconsumers’beliefs,thevalue-

expressiveandknowledgefunctionswillbethemostactive.

CLEMENSEN

21

METHOD Iexaminedmyresearchquestionsandtestedmyhypotheseswithsurveydatagathered

throughtheonlinecrowdsourcingtoolMechanicalTurk,followingotherresearcherswhohave

examinedattitudestowardcompanieswithasurveymethod.Academicresearchersalsooften

useAmazon’sMechanicalTurktodevelopapoolofsubjectsforresearchdatacollection.The

crowdsourcingsiteiscomprisedof100,000usersfrom100countrieswhocanbepaidto

performonlinetasks,suchastakingasurvey(Buhrmester,Kwang,&Gosling,2011).

MechanicalTurkworkersarepaidforeachtask,andafeeispaidtoMechanicalTurkitself.A

commonissuethathasdevelopedwithinacademicresearchintheU.S.hasbeentheoveruseof

universitystudentsubjectpoolsfordatacollection(Sears,1986).Thisleadstosomewhatbiased

resultsduetothehomogeneityoftheaverageU.S.universitystudentpopulationandthe

exclusionofotherpopulations.Otherresearchsuggeststhatcollectingdataonlinecanreduce

biasesfoundinusingguniversitystudentsubjectpools,althoughsomebiaswillstillremain

(Gosling,Vazire,Srivastava,&John,2004).AstudybyBuhrmesteretal.comparedMechanical

TurkdemographicstoalargegeneralInternetsampletodeterminehowtheycompare

demographically.TheirstudyfoundthatMechanicalTurkworkersweremorediverse

demographicallythanthestandardInternetsampleandweresignificantlymorediversethan

standardAmericancollegesamples(M.Buhrmester,etal.,2011).Thisstudyalsomeasuredthe

qualityofthedatathatwascollected.Buhrmesteretal.foundthatthequalityofthedata

providedbyMechanicalTurkmetorexceededthestandardsassociatedwithpublished

research(Buhrmester,etal.,2011).ByutilizingMechanicalTurk,thisstudywasabletogaina

diverseandrichdataset.However,theresultscanstillnotbegeneralizedtothepopulationas

CLEMENSEN

22

awholebecausethesampleofrespondentswasnotrandomduetoparticipants’collective

affiliationwithMechanicalTurk.Tospecifymysubjectpool,Isettheconditionthatparticipants

mustbefromtheU.S.Ialsosetmysubjectlimitto801respondentstofitwithinthefinancial

constraintsIfacedformystudy.

AfterestablishingthevalidityofusingMechanicalTurkasasubjectsourcingtool,I

developedmysurveyusingsoftwarefromQualtrics.Thesurveyconsistedof14questions,

endingwithauniquecodeapplicantscouldusetoverifytheycompletedthetaskinMechanical

Turkforpayment.Thesurveyconsistedofmeasures(definedbelow)ofhowrespondentsfeel

aboutcompaniesthattakepoliticalstancesandincludedmeasuresofthefunctionsofattitudes

definedbythefunctionaltheoryofattitudes.Thesurveystartedwithabriefintroductionof

theresearchstudyandconsentinformationinaccordancewithUniversityofMinnesota

InstitutionalReviewBoardstandards.IpublishedtheMechanicalTurkcall-for-responseson

May12,2017.Ipaidrespondents$0.65fortheirtimetakingthesurvey.Thisamountwas

higherthanthe$0.50amountusedinBuhrmesteretal.’squalitytest,somystudypassedthat

thresholdforquality.Thecall-for-responsesthroughMechanicalTurkclosedwithin4hours

once801surveyswerecompleted,asmeasuredthroughtheuseoftheuniquecodes.

Measures Tomeasurerespondents’attitudestowardcompaniesthattakeapoliticalstanceonan

issue,thisstudytakesathree-prongedapproachinitssurveyquestions.First,thesurvey

examinestheareasinwhichcompaniesuseCPAthroughaquestionaboutrespondents’

CLEMENSEN

23

experienceswithexamplesofCPA.Thisquestionaskswhereparticipantshavemostfrequently

seenexamplesofCPA.

Second,thisstudymeasuresgeneralattitudestowardcompaniesthroughintentto

purchase,anapproachthatisbasedonpreviousresearchstudies.Anexampleofoneofthese

questionsincludeswhetherparticipantswoulddiscourageothersfrompurchasingfrom

companieswhosepoliticalstancesdisagreewiththeirown.Anotherquestionexploredhow

oftenparticipantsseektopurchasefromcompanieswhosebeliefsmatchtheirown.These

questionsanalyzeparticipants’purchasebehaviorsinrelationtoCPAefforts,whichhelps

determinetheiroverallattitudesinrelationshiptoCPAactions.

Thethirdmeasuresystemthisstudyemploysexaminestheprimaryattitudefunctions

thatareactivatedwhenacompany’spoliticalstancebothagreesanddisagreeswith

respondents’politicalstances.Thismeasuresystemisbasedonpriorresearchthatuses

statementsthatcapturetheessenceofeachofKatz’sattitudinalfunctions(Wang,2012).For

example,inordertomeasuretheactivationofparticipants’value-expressiveattitudefunction,

thisstudyutilizedastatementthatmeasuresifthecompany’spoliticalstancehelps

participants’expresstheirvalues.Thisstatementreads,“Becauseofthiscompany’spolitical

stance,notbuyingitsproductmakesmefeelbetteraboutmyself.”Theotherstatementstake

thecoreprinciplesofKatz’sattitudefunctionsandmeasureparticipants’degreeofagreement

witheach.

CLEMENSEN

24

Participants

Thisstudyusedasamplesizeof813participantsrecruitedthroughtheuseof

MechanicalTurk,aspreviouslydiscussed.Thesamplewascomprisedof44.4percentfemale

participantsand54.18percentmaleparticipants.Lessthan2percenttotalofparticipants

identifiedasoneofthefollowing:gendervariant/non-conforming,transgenderfemale,

transgendermale,ornotlisted.ThesampleofMillennialsinthisstudy(n=496)included

participantsaged20to36atthetimeofthisstudy,whichalignswiththePewResearch

Center’sagedefinitionoftheMillennialgeneration(Fry,2016).Thenon-Millennialgroup

(n=317)includedallotherages,18andolder.Participantsprimarilycharacterizedthemselves

asmoderatetoliberalonpoliticalviews.Thenon-Millennialgroupweremorelikelyto

characterizethemselvesasatleastslightlyconservativetoveryconservative(34.3percent)

thantheMillennialgroup(19.6percent).

Thismethodhasbeengroundedinpreviousresearchstudiesandhelpstofurtherthe

researchintheareaofcorporatepoliticalactivism.Theresultsfromthisstudywillbefurther

discussedinthenextportionofthestudy.

CLEMENSEN

25

RESULTS

AttitudesandBehaviorstowardCompaniesthattakePoliticalStances Thisstudyfirstexaminedhowconsumersfeelingeneralaboutcompaniesthattake

politicalstanceswithaseriesofquestionsabouttheirintenttopurchase,theirhabitsin

relationtocompaniesthattakepoliticalstances,andtheirfeelingsaboutthosepolitical

stances.BecauseoftheimportanceandbuyingpoweroftheMillennialgeneration,theresults

ofthisstudyhavebeendividedtolookathowMillennialscomparetoothergenerationsintheir

attitudestowardcompaniesthatpracticecorporatepoliticalactivism.

Overall,theresultsshowthatbothMillennialsandnon-Millennialswouldnotpurchase

productsfromcompaniesthatmakepoliticalstatementstheydisagreewithandfeelthat

companiesshouldnottakeapoliticalstance.Eventhoughthedifferentgenerationsof

consumersagreewiththepoliticalstancesofcompanies,theywillnotbemorelikelyto

purchasefromthosecompanies.

Overall,consumerswouldbemorelikelytostoppurchasingaproductduetoapolitical

statementthatcompanyhadmade(n=802).ForboththeMillennialandnon-Millennialgroups,

a4outof5onlikelihoodnottopurchasewaschosenmostoftenwith34.27percentfornon-

Millennialsand32.18percentforMillennials.Non-Millennialsweremorelikelyoverallthan

Millennialstostoppurchasingfromcompaniesduetopoliticalstatementswith22.43percent

choosingverylikelytostoppurchasingcomparedto16.70percentofMillennials(seeFigure1).

CLEMENSEN

26

Neithergrouptendstointentionallypurchaseproductsfromcompaniesthathavemade

politicalstatementswithwhichtheyagree(n=809).Forthisquestion,themeanvaluesofboth

groupsareverysimilarwith2.84forMillennialsand2.89fornon-Millennials.Millennialsin

particulardonotseekoutproductsfromcompanieswhosestancesalignwiththeirownat

27.19percentcomparedto24.76percentofnon-Millennials(seeFigure2).

BothMillennialsandnon-Millennialsoftenintentionallydonotbuyproductsfrom

companiesthathavetakenastancetheydisagreewith(n=808).Non-Millennialsinparticular

CLEMENSEN

27

veryoftendonotpurchasefromcompaniestheydisagreewith(seeFigure3).Themeanvalues

forbothgroups,althoughsimilar,alsodemonstratethefindingthatnon-Millennialsaremore

likelytonotpurchasefromcompanieswithwhichtheydisagree.

Bothgroupsalsoaremorelikelytodiscourageothersfrompurchasingfromacompany

thattakesapoliticalstancetheydisagreewith(n=806).Non-Millennialsshowedahigher

likelihoodat26.50percentbutMillennialsansweredjustbelowat25.10percent.Thesecond

largestgroupforMillennials,however,respondedthattheywouldbeunlikelytodiscourage

othersat23.67percent(seeFigure4).

CLEMENSEN

28

BoththeMillennialsandnon-Millennialsrespondedneutrallytowhetherornotthey

wouldbewillingtopaymorefromacompanythatsupportsapoliticalstancewithwhichthey

agree(n=802).MoreMillennialsfeltneutralonthistopicat28.83percentcomparedto25.24

percentofnon-Millennials.Thesecondlargestgroupfornon-Millennialsfeelthattheywould

notatallpaymore.ForMillennials,thesecondlargestgroupfeelsthattheywouldpaymoreat

23.31percent(seeFigure5).

Non-Millennialsinparticularfeltstronglythatcompaniesshouldnottakestancesonpolitical

issuesat39.10percent(n=799).Millennialsfollowedwith33.06percentsayingtheyfeelthat

brandsshouldnotatalltakestancesonpoliticalissues.Thesecondlargestgroupforboth

Millennialsandnon-Millennialswasaneutralfeelingonthetopicat30.61percentfor

Millennialsand25percentfornon-Millennials.Accordingtothemeanvalues,theMillennial

groupagreesslightlymorethatcompaniesshouldtakepoliticalstancesthannon-Millennials.

CLEMENSEN

29

Millennialsandnon-MillennialsfeltneutraltowardCEOSwhomakestatementson

politicalissues,with40.98percentofMillennialsand32.48percentofnon-Millennials

answeringthisway(n=803).Thesecond-largestgroupofnon-Millennialsdonothavea

favorableopinionofCEOswhomakepoliticalstatementsat28.94percent.

ThesurveyresultsshowthatnotmuchdifferenceexistsbetweentheMillennialand

non-Millennialsrespondents’opinionsonthequestionsaskedinthissurvey(Figure8).

However,acomparisonofthemeanvaluesshowsthatcertaintopicscausedslightlymore

differencesinopinionsthanothers.Inparticular,themeanfortheMillennials’responseto

CLEMENSEN

30

theirfeelingstowardCEOSwhomakestatementsonpoliticalissueswas0.19morepositive

thanthenon-Millennialmean.Forthequestionaskingrespondentsfortheirlevelofagreement

onwhethercompaniesshouldtakepoliticalstances,theMillennialmeanwas0.16higherthan

themeanfornon-Millennials.Thenexthighestdifferenceoccurredonthequestionasking

respondentstheirleveloflikelihoodtostopbuyingaproductduetoapoliticalstatementthat

companyhadmade,withthenon-Millennialmeanbeing0.15higherthantheMillennialmean.

Furtherresearchshouldbeundertakentofullyunderstandthestatisticalsignificanceofthese

findings.

Millennialsmostlyseeexamplesofcompaniestakingpoliticalstancesonsocialmediaat

57.64percent(n=808).Non-Millennialsweredividedequallybetweencompanymaterials,such

asthewebsiteorbrochures,andsocialmediaat41.64percentforeachofthosetwo

categories.Thesecond-largestgroupofMillennialsat26.68percentalsochosecompany

materials.

CLEMENSEN

31

Inthesurvey,theparticipantswereaskedtoansweranopen-endedquestiononwhen

theydothinkcompaniesshouldtakeapoliticalstance(Figure9).Theseanswerswerethen

codedinto12categories:Affectsbusiness,Fitswithinthecompany'svalues,Affects

Human/CivilRights,Dependsonthesituation,Whentheleadersfeelpassionateaboutatopic,

Inthecaseofenvironmentalissues,Whenevertheywantto,Neutral,IfitbenefitstheU.S.,Ifit

benefitsthegreatergood,Other,Never.Anexampleofhowitemswerecodedincludes

categorizingthestatement“Ifthereisanissuethatdirectlyimpactsthecompany'sgoodsor

servicesinsomeway”under“Affectsbusiness.”

Themajorityofnon-Millennialrespondentsfeelthatcompaniesshouldnevertakea

politicalstanceat17percent.Thenextlargestgroupofnon-Millennialrespondentssuggested

thatcompaniesshouldonlytakeastandonanissuethataffectstheirbusinessat15percent.

Thethirdgroupsuggestedthatcompaniesshouldonlytakepoliticalstancesonissuesthat

affecthumanorcivilrights.ForMillennials,thetopcategoriesvariedsomewhat.Millennials

feltmorestronglythannon-Millennialsthatcompaniesshouldnevertakepoliticalstancesat23

percent.Theyalsofeelmorestronglythannon-Millennialsthatwhencompaniesdotake

CLEMENSEN

32

politicalstances,thosestancesshouldbeonissuesthataffecttheirbusinessinsomeway.For

Millennials,thethirdlargestcategoryincludesifthepoliticalstancewouldbenefitthegreater

goodat12percentcomparedto5percent.Comparedtonon-Millennials,slightlymorethan

doublethepercentofMillennialsfeelthatcompaniesshouldtakeapoliticalstancewhenever

theywantto.

AttitudinalFunctionsandCorporatePoliticalActivism Tounderstandtheattitudinalfunctionsparticipantsfeelinrelationtocompanies’

politicalstances,thisstudymeasurestheirlevelsofagreementwithstatementscreatedtoalign

withKatz’sfunctions.Whenacompany’spoliticalstancealignswiththatofparticipants,the

studyshowedthattheego-defensiveandoneofthevalue-expressivestatementstriggeredthe

highestlevelsofagreement(Figure10).Participantsparticularlydisagreedwiththeknowledge

statement.

CLEMENSEN

33

Similarly,whenacompany’spoliticalstancedoesnotalignwiththatofparticipants,

participantsagreedmostwithoneoftheego-defensiveandoneofthevalue-expressive

statements(Figure11).Participantsparticularlydisagreedwiththeutilitarianandknowledge

statements.

CLEMENSEN

34

DISCUSSION Overall,theseresultstendtodisputethehypothesesintroducedbythisstudy.While

generallydisputingthehypotheses,elementsofthestudydoagreewithpartsofthe

hypotheses.Forcertainreasons,thisstudyhasspecificlimitations,butgenerallyprovides

informationthatcanbeusedinfieldofstrategiccommunications.

Results Thefirsthypothesisposedbythisstudysuggestedthatparticipantswouldfeelpositively

towardcompaniesthattakepoliticalstances,particularlyMillennials.However,regardlessof

agegroup,theresultsshowthatparticipantsdonotbelievecompaniesshouldtakeapolitical

stance.Inparticular,theresultsshowthattheyarenotwillingtoseekoutcompanieswhose

politicalstancesalignwiththeirownandwouldnotbewillingtopaymoreforproductsand

servicesfromcompanieswhosepoliticalstanceswithwhichtheyagree.Infact,participantsare

morelikelytoboycottacompanythattakesapoliticalstancetheydisagreewith,ratherthan

supportacompanywithwhichtheyagree.

Thesecondpartofthefirsthypothesis,whichsuggeststhatMillennialsinparticularwill

feelpositivelytowardcompaniesthattakepoliticalstances,wassomewhatsupportedbythe

research.Millennialsdidskewslightlyhigherintermsofpositivitytowardcompaniesthattake

politicalstands,butwhenasked,thisgenerationalsooverallsuggestedthatbrandsshouldnot

takeastand.

Whenaskedwhenbrandsshouldtakeapoliticalstance,theprimaryanswerssuggested

thattheissuemustberelatedtothecompany’sbusinessitself.Thissuggeststhatparticipants

CLEMENSEN

35

wouldbemorelikelytofeelpositivelyaboutabrandwhosepoliticalstanceisauthenticallytrue

toitscorebusinessandvalues.PreviousresearchintherealmofCSRalsosuggeststhat

consumersfeelmorepositivelytowardcompanieswhoseCSReffortscloselyalignwiththeir

businessobjectives(Becker-Olsen,etal.,2005).PreviousCSRresearchalsostatesthat

consumersaremorelikelytoboycottCSReffortsthatseemlikeapoorfittotheorganization

anditsvalues(Faw,2014).Thesecondlargestresponsesuggestedthatcompaniesshouldtake

astandwhencivilorhumanrightsarethreatened.ThisrelatesbacktoMattenetal.’s

extendedviewoncorporatecitizenship,whichsuggeststhatcompaniesshouldparticipatein

corporatesocialresponsibilityissueswhengovernmentsfailtofulfilltheirduties(Mattenetal.,

2003).

Althoughoveralltheresultsforbothgenerationalgroupssuggestthatcompaniesshould

nottakepoliticalstancesonissues,participantswouldbemorelikelytofeelpositivelyifthe

politicalstancealignswiththebusinessanditscoreobjectivesorhelpsinmattersofcivilor

humanrights.Despitetheresultssuggestingconsumers’negativefeelingstowardcompanies

thattakepoliticalstances,otherfactorscouldseriouslyimpacthowconsumersbehaveinthe

realworld,whichhavenotbeenmeasuredbythisstudy.Futureresearchneedstobe

conductedonhowfactorssuchasbrandreputation,thecompany’shistoryofpoliticalactivism,

andconsumerlevelsandpracticesofactivismaffecthowsuccessfulcompaniescanbeintaking

politicalstances.Insomecases,particularissueswillforcecompaniestotakeastand,butitwill

beimportantforcompaniestounderstandthesituationsinwhichconsumerswillbemore

acceptingofthosestancesandwhentheywillbecompletelyagainstthem.

CLEMENSEN

36

Asfarastheattitudinalfunctionscompanies’politicalstatementscauseinrespondents,

theresearchundertakenbythisstudydoesnotcorroboratethesecondhypothesisposed.It

washypothesizedthatwhenacompany’sCPAactionsareinoppositiontoconsumers’beliefs,

theego-defensiveandutilitarianattitudinalfunctionswillbethemostactive.Thesecond

portionofthesecondhypothesissuggestedthatwhenacompany’sCPAactionsarein

agreementwithconsumers’beliefs,thevalue-expressiveandknowledgefunctionswillbethe

mostactive.However,theresultsshowthatwhencompanies’politicalstatementsarebothin

oppositiontoandinagreementwiththeseparticipants’beliefs,theego-defensiveandvalue-

expressivefunctionsareactivatedthemost.Althoughtheseresultsdisagreewiththeinitial

hypothesis,theylogicallymakesense.Politicalbeliefsareextremelyemotionalandpersonalto

people.Anyagreementordisagreementwiththemwillmorestronglyaffecttheattitudinal

functionsthatmostalignwithpeoples’emotionalstates.Theego-defensiveattitudeisrooted

intheideathatcertainpersonalinsecuritiesindividualshavecausethemtoformfeelings

towardthingstohelpthemmakesenseoftheworldaroundthemanddefendtheirown

feelingsmoreeasily(Katz,1960).Thevalueexpressiveattitudinalfunctionisalsorootedinthe

personalfeelingsofpeople.Thisattitudehelpspeoplefeelgoodaboutthemselvesandtheir

values.Theseattitudeshelppeopletoexpresswhotheyareandshowotherswhotheywantto

be(Katz,1960).

Thefindingsfromthisresearchstudyonthetypesofattitudesthatparticipantsmost

feeltowardcompaniesthattakeapoliticalstanceoffersomeinsightintohowcompaniescan

bestcommunicatetheirCPAmessagesinthefutureinordertochangethemindsofconsumers

whodisagreewiththem.Byunderstandingthefunctionscertainattitudesplayforconsumers,

CLEMENSEN

37

companiescanstructuretheirmessagestoappealtotheego-defensiveandvalue-expressive

attitudesofconsumers.

Limitations Aswithanyresearchstudy,thisparticularstudyhasitslimitations.Theprimary

limitationofthisstudyisthatitusesaconveniencesample,ratherthanarandomsample.

AlthoughtheMechanicalTurksubjectpoolcloselymimicsthediversityofthegeneral

populationasBuhrmesteretal.found(Buhrmesteretal.,2011),duetoparticipants’

associationswiththeplatform,theresultsofthisstudycannotbeaccuratelyusedtogeneralize

aboutthegreaterpopulationasawhole.Anotherlimitationliesinthemethodusedforthe

study.While,thesurveymethodworkedwellforgatheringtheopinionsofmany,quantitative

methodsbyfunctioncanonlydivesodeepintoparticulartopics.Anotherextensionofthis

researchwouldincludefocusgroupsorin-depthinterviewswithconsumerstogiveanin-depth

understandingoftheirthoughtsandfeelingssurroundingcompaniesandtheirpoliticalstances.

Assuch,thisresearchstudyprovidesabaselineforbeginningmoreresearchintothispreviously

unexploredareaofstudy.

Further,asLutzpointedout,measuringattitudefunctionsisnotanexactscience(Lutz,

1981).Whileseveralotherstudieshaveusedthemethodofdevelopingstatementsthat

projecttheattitudinalfunctionsandtestingagreementwiththosestatements(Wang,Belch

andBelch),themethodstillhasitslimitationsduetothefactthatthestatementsthemselves

arenotnecessarilyanexactreplicaforthefunctionsastheyaredevelopedbytheresearcher.

CLEMENSEN

38

Despitetheselimitations,thisresearchstudyactsasanimportantbeginningstepinto

exploringhowconsumersfeelaboutcompaniesthattakepoliticalstances.Duetothe

increasingandsomewhatnewnatureofwhatthisstudycallscorporatepoliticalactivism,

furtherstudyisnecessarytohelpcompaniesnavigatethisnewfrontier.Manycompanies

currentlyhaveflounderedinaseaofboycotts,protests,andgeneralnegativitydueto

statementstheyhavemade.Asdiscussedpreviouslyinthisstudy,examplesoftheseissues

includeTargetanditspolicyontransgenderusageofrestroomsandChic-fil-A’sCEO’s

commentsaboutgaymarriage(Satran,2013).

If,asthisstudysuggests,consumersdonotfeellikecompaniesshouldtakepolitical

stances,thenwhydowecontinuetoseemoreandmorecompaniesspeakoutonparticular

issues?Asthisquestionwasnotaddressedinthisstudy,thisareadeservesfurtherresearch

considerations.Futureresearchcouldincludeexpertinterviewswithbrandmanagersor

communicationsprofessionalsonwhybrandsfeelpressuredtotakeastandoncertainissues.

Thisstudywoulduncovercompanies’motivationsforspeakingoutpolitically,whichmightnot

alwaysalignwithwhattheircustomersexpectorwant,butmightbecrucialtothesuccessof

thecompanynonetheless.Anotherareaofopportunityforfutureresearchliesintherole

mediaplaysinthesuccessordownfallofcompaniesthattakepoliticalstances.Currently,

mediaoutletsfocusprimarilyonissueswherecompaniesreceivenegativereactionsfrom

consumers,suchasprotestsorboycotts,butrarelyreportoninstanceswherecompaniestake

politicalstancesandarerewardedforit.Couldthemediabeinfluencing,throughagenda

setting,howconsumersfeelaboutcompaniesthattakepoliticalstances?Mediaoutletshave

becomemorepolarized,andconsumershavebeguntoselecttheirsourcesbasedontheir

CLEMENSEN

39

politicalstances.AccordingtotheEdelmanTrustBarometer,trustinthemediaisatanall-time

low(Edelman,2017).DavidArmanoofthetradepublicationAdweekwrites,“Increasingly,this

‘self-selection’byconsumersofmediatheyagreewithissymptomaticoftrustissueswiththe

media”(Armano,2017).Furtherresearchisnecessarytoexplorethisquestion.

Despitetheselimitations,thisresearchstudyactsasafirststepintoexploringcorporate

politicalactivismandhowconsumersfeelaboutcompaniesthattakepoliticalstances.Inthe

nextsectionofthisstudy,strategicimplicationsandrecommendationswillbeexploredinorder

tohelpcompaniesnavigatethecurrentpoliticizedworld.

CLEMENSEN

40

STRATEGICIMPLICATIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS Theresultsofthisstudycanbeusedbycorporationstodetermineabetterwayinwhich

totakeaCPAstance.Thefollowingstrategicimplicationsandrecommendationswere

developedbyanalyzinghowconsumersfeelandthinkaboutcompaniesthattakepolitical

stances.Althoughparticipants’reactionswereprimarilynegativetowardcompaniesthattake

politicalstances,thatinformationcanbeusedtoshowhowcompaniesshouldnotbehave

whentakingCPAactions.Mostoftheexamplespresentedinthisprojectshowinstanceswhere

corporationshaveincorrectlybehavedintermsofCPA,whichcouldnegativelyimpact

consumers’perceptionsofCPA.Therefore,thefollowingstrategicrecommendationsshowthe

correctbehaviorscorporationsshouldfollowinordertomoresuccessfullyuseCPA.

Acurrentstateofmistrustthathasprevailedintheworldinthelastcoupleyears,as

demonstratedbytheEdelmanTrustBarometer,whichcurrentlyputsworldwidetrustinall

typesoforganizationsatanall-timelow(2017).Duetothisdecreaseintrust,populistaction

hasincreased.Mistrustinthesystemhascausedconsumerstofeelfear,andpopulistaction

helpsputthembackincontrol.Thebusinessrealm,however,althoughstillexperiencinglow

levelsoftrust,hasbeenshowntopossesshigherlevelsoftrustwithconsumersthan

governmentormedia(Edelman,2017).TheTrustBarometerstudyalsoaskedparticipantshow

businessescanbuildtrust,anditsfindingsincludethebaselineofofferinghighqualityproducts

andservices,butalsolisteningtocustomersandtreatingemployeeswell,whichwillbe

exploredfurtherintherecommendationsfromthisstudy(2017).

Duetothisprevailinglackoftrustinrelyingoninstitutionsandsystems,consumersare

examininghowtheypersonallycanmakeanimpactintheireverydaylivesbecausetheyfeel

CLEMENSEN

41

likenooneelseistryingtomakeadifference(Mintel,2017).Mintel’sreportonthetrendof

moralbrandssuggeststhatconsumersareturningtocompaniestoactontheirbehalf:

“Consumersmayvoicegreenorethicalsentiments,buttheyareoftentoolazy,toocash-

strappedortooshortoftimetoturnbeliefintoaction.Asaresult,theyarelookingto

manufacturers,retailersandbrandstodothegoodworkforthem”(Mintel,2017).Thishasled

tosomethingtradepublicationsarecalling“pseudo-activism”byMillennialconsumers

(Legraien,2017).Asthefirstgenerationtogrowupwithtechnology,theMillennialgeneration

hasbeenusingdigitalplatformstolaunchprotests,ratherthanthephysical,on-the-streets

protestsofpreviousgenerations.Thispseudo-activismhasledtolargemovementsofsocial

mediapopulistaction;however,theconnectionconsumersfeelwiththesecausestheyare

supportingthroughsocialmediaseemsfleetingandshort-termaccordingtocritics.Critics

claimthatconsumersclick“Like”andthenmoveon,withoutactuallyengaginginanissueor

activelyparticipatinginhelpingwithissues(Howard,2014).Atthispointintime,thesuccessof

thesesocialmediacampaignsisstilldebatable;however,companiesneedtokeepafingeron

thepulseoftheseissuesorriskfacinganonlinefirestorm.

Companiessofarhaveprovenlargelyunsuccessfulatmakingpoliticalstatements,as

demonstratedinpreviousexamplesofboycottsthathaveensued.Whatexactlyhasmade

thesebrandsunsuccessful?Firstofall,inalmostallofthesecases,thecompanies’CEOshave

beentheonestodeliverthemessage.AccordingtotheTrustBarometer,CEOsarenow

consideredmoreuntrustworthythanever(Edelman,2017).Only37percentofthosesurveyed

findCEOstobecrediblespokespeopleforacompany(Edelman,2017).Theresultsofthis

currentstudyalsoshowedthatparticipantsareatbestindifferenttoCEOsspeakingoutabout

CLEMENSEN

42

politicalissues(Figure7).ThepublicrelationsfirmWeberShandwickalsoconductedastudyon

CEOactivismandfoundthatAmericansareskepticalofCEOs’intentionswhentheyspeakout

politically,with36percentsayingtheybelieveCEOsspeakoutonlytogetattentionfrommedia

(WeberShandwick&KRCResearch,2016).Chic-fil-Aprovidesacautionarytaleinthissituation.

TheCEO,DanCathy,spokeoutagainstgaymarriagein2012,andthecompanyfacedprotests

andonlinebacklash(Satran,2013).

Anotherareacompanieshaveactedincorrectlywhentakingapoliticalstanceisbynot

understandinghowboththeirconsumersandtheiremployeesfeelaboutanissue.Thisrelates

backtotheCEOasspokespersonissue.InthecaseofChic-fil-A,theCEOspokeoutonanissue

basedonhispersonalopinion,ratherthanfirstgauginghowconsumersandemployeesfelt.

AnotherexampleoccurredwhenGrubHub’sCEOsentanemailtothecompanystatingthatany

employeewhoagreeswithPresidentTrump’s“nationalist,anti-immigrantandhatefulpolitics”

shouldresignimmediately(Soloman,2016).Hisemailread,“Ifyoudonotagreewiththis

statementthenpleasereplytothisemailwithyourresignationbecauseyouhavenoplace

here.Wedonottoleratehatefulattitudesonourteam”(Solomon,2016).Thatday,GrubHub

sharesfell4percentinthestockmarket,butadirectcorrelationcannotnecessarilybereached

betweenthetwoincidents(Soloman,2016).

Incidentsliketheseshowthatcompanieshavenotyetfiguredouthowtotaketheir

employees’andconsumers’viewsandopinionsintoaccountbeforemakingstatementson

politicalissues.Becauseofthis,boycottsensue,andthemediareportsonthesenegative

reactions.Duetothiscycleofnegativeactionsandthenreactions,consumershaveonlyseen

thenegativeeffectsofcompanies’politicalstances,whichcouldcontributetoparticipantsin

CLEMENSEN

43

thisstudysuggestingcompaniesshouldjuststayoutofpoliticsalltogether.However,in

certainsituations,companiesareforcedintopoliticalsituationsthroughnoactionsoftheir

own.Forexample,outdoorclothingretailerL.L.Beanwasforcedintothepoliticalspotlightby

atweetfromPresidentTrump(Victor,2017).Trump’stweetread,“ThankyoutoLindaBeanof

L.L.Beanforyourgreatsupportandcourage.Peoplewillsupportyouevenmorenow.BuyL.L.

Bean”(Victor,2017).Afterthetweet,theGrabYourWalletcampaignplacedL.L.Beanonits

boycottlist,andthecompanyfacedbacklashonsocialmediachannels(Victor2017).

So,whatcancompaniesdotoavoidbeing

boycotted,oratleastmitigatenegativeeffects,in

suchapolarizedpoliticalclimate?Thisstudyoutlines

fourkeystepscompaniesmustfollowinorderto

avoidapoliticalnightmare(Figure12).

Step1:KnowthyEmployees Theresultsofthisstudy,althoughconductedwithgeneralconsumers,canbeappliedin

thissituationbecauseemployeesarealsoconsumers.Becauseofthefactthatacompany’s

employeesareconsumersalso,understandinghowtheyfeelpoliticallyiscrucialtothesuccess

ofanycompanyinthesepoliticizedtimes.

Inordertoavoiddisasterwhenmakingapoliticalstatement,companiesmust

understandtheprevailingfeelingsoftheiremployees.Beforeacompanymakesapolitical

statementonanissue,thatcompanyshouldfirststudyitsemployees’politicalbeliefsas

extensivelyastheydotheattitudesandbeliefsofcustomers.Thenextimportantstepisto

CLEMENSEN

44

fullyexplaintoemployeeswhythecompanyismakingapoliticalstatementaboutaparticular

issueandhowitmatcheswiththecompany’svaluesandobjectives.Basedontheprevious

literatureonCSR,thefitwiththecompany’svaluesgreatlyimpactsthesuccessofthepolitical

orsocialstancethecompanytakes.“Providecontext;explainboththeeconomicandsocietal

benefitsofinnovationsandotherdecisions;engage;andthentakeaction”(Edelman,2017).

Theimportanceofengagingwithemployeesbeforemakingpoliticalstatementsisfurther

supportedbythefindingthattheyarethemostcrediblespokespeopleforacompany.

Accordingtothe2013EdelmanTrustBarometer,“Employeesrankhigherinpublictrustthana

firm’sPRdepartment,CEO,orFounder.Forty-onepercentofusbelievethatemployeesarethe

mostcrediblesourceofinformationregardingtheirbusiness”(Edelman,2013).Similarly,the

NeilsenTrustinAdvertisingReportfoundthatpeoplearemorelikelytotrust“someonelike

me”morethananyofficialspokespersonfromacompany(Nielsen,2017).

Anexamplewhereacompanydidnotengageemployeesbeforetakingastandoccurred

in2017,whenIBM’schiefexecutivepublicallycongratulatedTrumponbehalfofthecompany

forwinningthepresidentialelection(Alaimo,2017).Followingthispublicstatement,an

employeestartedapetitioncallingfortheCEOto“affirmIBMers’corevaluesofdiversity,

inclusiveness,andethicalbusinessconduct”(Alaimo,2017).Atthepointoftimethisstudywas

written,twothousandIBMemployeesignatureshadbeencollectedforthepetition(Alaimo,

2017).

Theresearchconductedinthisstudyalsosuggeststheimportanceofknowinghow

employeesfeelaboutcompaniesthattakepoliticalstances.Becauseemployeesareconsumer,

also,thekeyfindingsofthisstudyalsoapply.Forexample,Figure10displaysthetoptopicsin

CLEMENSEN

45

whichrespondentsfeelcompaniesshouldtakepoliticalstances.Becauseemployeesarealso

consumers,thislistoftopicscouldbeappliedsimilarlybyacompanylookingforanareaof

discussionthatwillresonatewiththeiremployees.

Byengagingwithemployees,ensuringthepoliticalstatementalignswiththeirprevailing

attitudes,andutilizingthemasspokespeopleonissues,companiescanhopetodiminish

backlashwhentakingpoliticalstances.

Step2:KnowthyConsumers

Thecurrentlowlevelsoftrustbyconsumersintheworld,asreportedbyEdelman,has

affectedthewayconsumersbehavetowardcompanies.Thislackoftrustininstitutionshasleft

consumersopento“populistmovementsfueledbyfear”(Edelman,2017).Consumersare

morewillingtojoininononlineboycottsduetothislackoftrust.AccordingtotheEdelman

TrustBarometer53percentbelievethesystemisfailingthem(Edelman).Thispresentsboth

challengesandopportunityforcompanies.Becausetheinstitutionofbusinessismoretrusted

thanotherinstitutionscurrently,companiescancapitalizeonthishigherleveloftrusttofurther

buildrelationshipswithconsumers.Alongwiththishigherleveloftrust,88percentof

consumersagreethatcorporationshavethepowertoinfluencesocialchange(JWT

Intelligence,2016).

Inordertosuccessfullybuildtheserelationshipsandenactthatsocialchange,however,

companiesneedtocarefullyweighprosandconsandlearnasmuchastheycanabouttheir

consumersastheycanbeforetakingastance.Thisstudyhasshownthatconsumersaremore

likelytonotpurchaseproductsfromacompanywithwhichtheydisagree(Figure3),so

CLEMENSEN

46

companiesneedtounderstandwhichoftheircustomersarestrategicallyvaluableandhow

theyfeeloncertainpoliticalissues.Companiesalsoneedtounderstandthatnomatterwhat

stancetheytake,theyarealwaysgoingtofacesomelevelofbacklashfromcertainconsumers.

Byfullyunderstandingtheprevailingattitudesandbeliefsoftheirmostvaluablecurrentand

potentialcustomers,companiescantakepoliticalstancesthatwilldifferentiatethemselves

fromothercompaniesandappealtothevaluesoftheirtargetedcustomers.Figure10shows

politicalcausesthatparticipantsofthisstudywouldfindacceptableforcompaniestotakea

standon,whichisimportanttolearnbeforeacompanyspeaksout.

Anotherareaoffutureresearchliesindeterminingtheactualfinancialimpactanonline

boycotthasonacompany.Forexample,afterconsumersboycottedChic-fil-Ain2012forits

CEO’santi-gaymarriageremarks,thecompanyexperiencedrecordsalesthatyear(Satran,

2013).Moreresearchintowhoisactuallyboycottingthesecompaniesandwhethertheyare

evenpotentialcustomersofthecompaniestheyareboycottingisnecessarytoreally

understandthefinancialimpactsofonlineboycotts.Infact,only54percentofMillennials

identifythemselvesas“activists,”whichissurprisingforagenerationthatisoftenassociated

withwantingtoenactpositivechange(Deloitte,2016).Withtheriseofsocialmedia,pseudo-

activism,mentionedpreviouslyinthispaper,hasarisen.Companiesneedtounderstandthe

differencebetweenwhenapoliticalstancewillresultinrealfinancialimplicationsbynegatively

engagingtheircoreandpotentialcustomersandwhenthepoliticalstancewillresultinpseudo-

activismbyconsumersoutsidetheircustomerbase.Strategyisaboutmakingchoices,and

companiesneedtochoosewhichconsumerswithwhichtheyneedtoconnect.Thismeans

CLEMENSEN

47

theyneedtoknowwhichconsumerstheycanaffordtosacrificeinordertobetterconnectwith

themorestrategicallyviableconsumers.

Step3:KnowthyCause

Inordertoeffectivelytakeapoliticalstand,companiesneedtofullyunderstandthe

prevailingpoliticalissuesofthetime.Companiesneedtodiligentlyandcarefullyexamineall

sidesofanissuebeforetakingapoliticalstance.Withoutthisin-depthknowledge,companies

cannotcarefullychoosecauseswithwhichtoalign.

Theresearchportionofthisstudydemonstratesthatparticipantsfeeltheissues

companiesshouldtakestancesonshouldprimarilyberelatedinsomewaytothebusinessand

itsobjectivesorintheserviceofhelpingbenefitthegreatergood.Similartotheprevious

researchonCSRdiscussedintheliteraturereview(Becker-Olsen,etal.,2005;Faw,2014),this

studyalsosuggeststhatthepoliticalstance’sfitwiththecompany’sbusinessobjectivesismost

importanttoconsumers.Figure10,displayedearlierinthisstudy,showsthepoliticaltopics

whichconsumersfeelareappropriateforcompaniestotakeastandon.

Companiesneedtocarefullyandselectivelychoosetheareasinwhichtheywantto

attempttomakeapoliticalstance.Byanalyzingtheirconsumersandemployees,assuggested

intheprevioustwosteps,companiescanuncoverthepoliticalissuesthatmattermosttoboth,

thenfindsynergiesbetweentheircompanyvaluesandbusinessobjectivesandtheissues

consumersandemployeescaremostabout.Byaligningallthreeareasofknowledge,a

companycanbuildtrustandgoodwillwithbothemployeesandconsumers.

Whentakingapoliticalstance,companiesalsoneedtoexpresslystatehowitsbusiness

relatestotheissuetheyarediscussing.LeslieGaines-Ross,WeberShandwick’schiefreputation

CLEMENSEN

48

strategiststates,“Ourresearchshowsthatconsumersdonotimmediatelyunderstandwhya

CEOwouldbespeakinguponanissuethatisn’tdirectlyrelevanttowhattheircorebusinessis

allabout.Atfirstglance,peoplethinkthatCEOsarejusttryingtogetmediaattentionorsell

products.Thetietothebusinesshastobeupfront,clearandvalues-drivenfortheaverage

persontodiscernwhyacompanywouldweighinonsuchahot-buttonissue”(Alaimo,2017).

Bydiscussinghowanissuerelatestoacompany’sbusiness,thecompanyavoidsfirstconfusing

consumers,whichimmediatelyplacesabarrierinconsumers’minds.

Inmanyexamplespreviouslydiscussedinthisstudy,companiesdidnotchoosecauses

thatrelatetotheirbusinessnorattempttomakeaclearconnectionbetweentheirbusiness

andtheissue.Thecaseofpasta-makerBarilla’sCEO’santi-gaypublicstatementsillustratesthis

point(Scherer,2013).GuidoBarilla,theCEO,saidinaninterview,“Iwouldneverdo[a

commercial]withahomosexualfamily,notforlackofrespectbutbecausewedon'tagreewith

them.Oursisaclassicfamilywherethewomanplaysafundamentalrole”(Scherer,2013).

Consumerswereconfusedonwhyapastacompanywouldevenjointhepoliticalfray

surroundinggaymarriage,andthecompanymadenoattemptinanywaytoconnecttheir

companytotheissue.Thisresultedinanonlineboycottagainstthecompanyandafloodof

angrycommentstothecompany’sFacebookpage(Scherer,2013).

Bystudyingfirstwhatissuesmattertoemployees,thentheissuesthehighestpotential

consumerscareabout,andfindingandbecomingknowledgeableaboutcausesthatalignwitha

company’sbusinessandvalues,acompanycanthenbegintocraftanddevelopthestancethat

makesthemoststrategicsensefortheircompany.

CLEMENSEN

49

Step4:KnowthyStance

Oftentimes,brandshavebeencaughtinpoliticalcrossfireduetoalackofknowledgeon

howtheiractionsmightbeinterpretedintherealmofpolitics.Theytakeactionwithoutfirst

realizinghowthoseactionscanbemisconstrued.ThishappensfrequentlywhenCEOsspeak

outonissues,withoutfirstconsideringhowtheiropinionsaresointricatelytiedtothe

companytheyrepresent.

Afterdoingduediligenceinfullyexploringhowtheiremployeesfeel,howtheir

customersfeel,andeverythingtheycanaboutthecausetheyaresupporting,onlythenshould

companiestransparentlyandtactfullymaketheirpoliticalstanceknown,ifthatistheright

decision.Companiesneedtoclearlyexplaintheirstancetoboththeiremployeesand

customersinawaythatdoesnotappeartooambiguousorinauthentic.

Onestepinthisprocess,isknowingthecompany’svaluesandhowtheyrelatetothe

stance.Asdiscussedinthepreviousstep,thecauseacompanychoosestoalignwithmust

resonatewiththecorebusinessandthecompany’svaluesinordertobeperceivedas

authentic.Inthecaseoftakingapoliticalstance,companiesmustoverarticulatehowthat

stancealignswiththeirvaluesandmission.Thisstephelpsconsumersmakesenseofwhythe

companyistakingastanceandhelpsemployeeseasilyengagewiththecauseaswell.

Companiesshouldalsoconsiderthetoneofvoice,channels,andmessagingusedto

conveytheirpoliticalstance.AccordingtotheNielsenTrustinAdvertisingreport,70percentof

respondentsreportedthattheytrustacompany’sbrandedwebsite,secondtothetrustthey

placeinrecommendationsfrompeopletheyknow(Nielsen,2016).Communicationsshouldbe

clearandinahumanvoice,whichiswhereemployeeadvocacyplaysahugerole.Companies

CLEMENSEN

50

canalsousetheresultsofthisstudyinrelationtoKatz’sfunctionalattitudesbycraftingpolitical

stancemessagesthatappealtoeithertheego-defensiveorvalue-expressiveattitudes.An

exampleofthiswouldbecraftingmessagestoshowthatthecompany’spoliticalstanceisa

reflectionofconsumers’ownbeliefsorthebeliefsofsocialgrouptowhichconsumerswishto

belonginordertoappealtothevalue-expressivefunction.Inordertoappealtotheego-

defensivefunction,companiescouldcraftmessagesthatpromotepositivitytowardthe

consumers’decisiontoholdthatparticularpoliticalstance,thereforemakingtheconsumers

feelgoodaboutthepoliticalstancetheyhold.

Beforetakingapoliticalstance,companiesneedtohaveacrisisplanpreparedforwhen

activistsstartpostingtosocialmedia.ThepublicrelationsfirmWeberShandwickhascreated

anonlinecrisissimulationandtrainingtoolcalled“Firebell”tohelpcompaniespreparefor

whensocialmediafirestormsstart(Grynbaum&Maheshwari,2017).Companiesshould

developcrisisplansforsituationsinwhichtheyarenotactivelytakingapoliticalstanceaswell,

suchasifPresidentTrumpmentionstheminatweetortheiradvertisementshowsupona

politicallycontroversialwebsite,suchasBreitbart.Companiesneedtostartoverpreparingin

thishighlypoliticizedandvolatileclimateinordertostayaheadofanyissuesthatarise.

ASometimes-UnavoidableRisk

Companiesneedtorecognizethatevenexistinginthiscurrentpoliticalclimatecanbea

risk.Inmanycases,there’snoavoidingoffendingsomeone,soitcomesdowntochoosingthe

greatergoodforthecompany,itsemployees,anditskeycustomers.Sometimes,companies

willneedtomakeachoiceonwhomtheycanhandleoffendingandwhatsituationsrequire

CLEMENSEN

51

steppingoutofthepoliticalfray.Also,resultsarestillunclearonwhethertheseboycottsreally

damageacompanyintermsofreputation.Asfarassalesgo,intheChic-fil-Acase,saleswere

notnegativelyaffectedandthecompanyevenhadarecordyearin2012,whentheCEOmade

theanti-gaymarriagestatements(Satran,2013).Inmanycases,extremeactivistsseekout

companiestolaunchboycottsagainst,butthisactivityhasbeenoccurringfordecades.Further

researchneedstobeconductedonwhethertheseextremeactivistsareactuallyevenoriginally

customersofthecompaniestheyaretargeting.Withtheadditionofsocialmedia,companies

havefacedanewtypeofactivismthattheyhavenotyetlearnedtohandle.Unfortunatelyfor

certaincompanies,pastnegativesituationshavebecometheexampleswhichconsumershold

upasthenorm,thereforesuggestingcompaniesshouldnottakepoliticalstances.However,in

thispoliticaltime,companiesoftentimesdonothaveachoice.Thismeansthatnowmorethan

ever,companiesmustintimatelyknowtheiremployees,theircustomers,andthepolitical

issuesofthetimesinordertoprotectthemselvesagainstonlinebacklash.

CLEMENSEN

52

CONCLUSION Inthishighlypoliticizedandpolarizedclimate,companiesarestrugglingwithwhetheror

nottospeakoutonpoliticalissues.Severalcompanieshavemadeattemptstomakepolitical

statements,butoftentimesexperienceonlineboycottsandfirestorms.Withanoverallglobal

lackoftrustininstitutionsandtheriseofsocialmedia,companiesarefacingalevelofactivism

theyhavenotexperiencedinthepast.

Thispaperdefinescompaniestakingastandonpoliticalissuesascorporatepolitical

activism(CPA).Duetothetimelinessofthistopic,littlepreviousresearchhasbeenconducted

yettounderstandthisrelativelynewphenomenon.Toactasaproxytohelpunderstandthis

topic,thispaperexaminespreviousliteratureinthefieldofcorporatesocialresponsibility

(CSR).Thispreviousliteraturesuggeststhatwhendoneproperlyandstrategically,CSRefforts

canincreaseconsumers’positiveattitudestowardacompany.However,ifdoneincorrectly,

CSReffortscanalsoleadtonegativeconsequencesforacompanyandevenconsumers

boycottingacompany.ThisstudyalsoexaminedpreviousliteraturesurroundingKatz’s(1960)

functionaltheoryofattitudes,whichincludetheutilitarian,ego-defensive,value-expressive,

andknowledgefunctions.Thistheory,whenappliedtoCPA,canhelpcompaniesbettercraft

theirpoliticalstatementsinordertomorestrategicallyappealtotheattitudesthatconsumers

feeltowardpoliticalissues.

Studyingthepreviousliteratureledtothepurposeofthisresearchstudy,whichisto

determinehowconsumers,particularlyMillennials,feeltowardactionsofCPApluswhenand

howcompaniescansuccessfullytakeapoliticalstance.Thesecondpurposeofthisstudyisto

determinethefunctionalattitudesthatcorporatepoliticalactivismfulfillsforconsumers.In

CLEMENSEN

53

ordertostudyhowconsumersfeelaboutcompaniesandCPA,thisstudysurveyed813

consumersfromacrosstheU.S.usingthecrowdsourcingtoolMechanicalTurk,ownedby

Amazon.Thesurveyfirstaskedquestionstodetermineparticipants’perceptionsandattitudes

towardcompaniesthattakepoliticalstances.Thesecondpartofthesurveyutilizedcrafted

statementscorrespondingtoKatz’sattitudinalfunctionstodeterminewhichfunctions

participants’feelmosttowardpoliticalstances.

TheresearchstudyfoundthatoverallbothMillennialsandnon-Millennialsfeelthat

companiesshouldnottakepoliticalstances,althoughMillennialsfeelslightlymorepositively

thannon-Millennials.Neithergroupactivelyseeksoutcompanieswhosepoliticalvaluesalign

withtheirownandarenotwillingtopaymoreforproductsfromsuchcompanies.Bothgroups

saidtheywouldbewillingtoboycottacompanythattakesapoliticalstancewithwhichthey

disagree.Bothgroupssuggestedthatcompaniesshouldnevertakeapoliticalstance,butif

theydo,thestanceshouldberelatedtotheirbusinessorcivilorhumanrights.Thesecondpart

oftheresultsshowthattheego-defensiveandvalue-expressivefunctionsaremostactivefor

participants’inrelationtocompaniesthattakepoliticalstanceswithwhichtheybothagreeand

disagree.

Afteranalyzingmacrotrendsinsocietyandlookingatpastexperiences,sometimes

companieshavenochoicebuttotakeapoliticalstanceundercertainsituations.Basedonthe

resultsofthepreviouslymentionedsurvey,analyzingtheliterature,andlookingatprevious

incidents,thisstudysuggestsafour-stepapproachtohelpingcompaniesmorestrategicallyand

purposefullytakeapoliticalstance.Thefirststepincludesunderstandingtheprevailingissuesa

company’semployeescareabout.Thesecondstepistouncoverwhatissuesconsumerswith

CLEMENSEN

54

themostpotentialcareabout.Fromthere,companiesneedtodeeplyexploreandunderstand

thepoliticalissuesofthetime.Attheintersectionofthesethreeareasofknowledge,

employees,consumers,andcauses,liesthepoliticalstanceacompanyshouldtake.As

illustratedthroughseveralcontroversialexamples,companiesinthepasthavenottakenanyof

theseareasintoconsiderationbeforeexpressingtheirpoliticalstance.Thesepreviousbad

exampleshaveledtofeelingsofnegativityinconsumerstowardcorporatepoliticalactivism,an

areawhichneedstobefurtherexploredinfutureresearch.Anotherstrategicrecommendation

fromthisstudyistoavoidusingtheCEOofacompanyasthespokespersononpoliticalissues,

butinsteadusingeverydayemployeestobuildmoretrustwithbothconsumersandemployers.

Companiesshouldalsoappealtotheego-defensiveandvalue-expressiveattitudesof

consumersintheirpoliticalstancesinordertobetterresonate,asdiscussedpreviouslyinthis

project.

Finally,thisstudy,asafirststepinthepathtounderstandingCPA,doeshavesome

limitations.Thefirstlimitationisthefactthataconvenienceratherthanarandomsampleof

surveyparticipantswasused,sotheseresultscannotbegeneralizedtothegreaterpublic.

Anotherlimitationliesintheuseofasurveymethodbecausethismethodcannotfullyexplore

andgoindepthoncertaintopicsthatwouldhelpfurtherthisresearch.Thismethodalsodoes

notfullyanalyzethebehaviorofparticipants,sotheycouldsayonethingbutinrealitydo

somethingcompletelydifferentbehaviorally.Measuringthefunctionalattitudesalsoposesa

limitationduetothepossiblesubjectivityofthestatementsusedtomeasurethefunctions.

Theselimitations,however,offeropportunitiesforfuturestudyandresearch.Some

areasthatshouldbefurtherexploredarethereasonscompaniesfeelpressuredtotakea

CLEMENSEN

55

politicalstance.Thiscouldbestudiedthroughin-depthinterviewswithcommunications

professionalswhoworkatcompaniesthathavetakenpoliticalstances.Anotheropportunity

forfuturestudyliesinstudyinghowtrustplaysaroleinhowconsumersfeelaboutcompanies

takingpoliticalstands.StudyingtherolemediaplaysinhowconsumersfeelaboutCPAwould

alsoofferanopportunitytodeterminewhetherexternalfactorsinfluenceCPA.

CLEMENSEN

56

REFERENCES2017EdelmanTRUSTBAROMETERRevealsGlobalImplosionofTrust.(n.d.).RetrievedJune20,

2017,fromhttp://www.edelman.com/news/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-

global-implosion/

Abrams,R.(2017,February25).TheAnti-TrumpActivistTakingOnRetailers.RetrievedJune20,

2017,fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/business/the-unlikely-general-

behind-an-anti-trump-boycott.html

activism.2017.InMerriam-Webster.com.RetrievedJune8,2017,fromhttps://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/activism

advocacy.2017.InMerriam-Webster.com.RetrievedJune8,2017,fromhttps://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/advocacy

Alaimo,K.(2017,February17).WhenCompaniesShould(andShouldn't)EnterthePolitical

Fray.RetrievedJune20,2017,fromhttps://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-

02-17/when-companies-should-and-shouldn-t-enter-the-political-fray

Allen,RobinLee.(2013).Socialissues:Expertsadvisebrandstoweighprosandconsbefore

takingastand.Nation'sRestaurantNews,47(9),54.

Allport,G.W.(1935)Attitudes.In:Murchison,C.,Ed.,AHandbookofSocialPsychology,Clark

UniversityPress,Worcester.

Ames,E.(n.d.).MillennialDemandforCorporateSocialResponsibilityDrivesChangeinBrand

Strategies.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.ama.org/publications/MarketingNews/Pages/millennial-demand-for-

social-responsibility-changes-brand-strategies.aspx

CLEMENSEN

57

Arlow,P.(1991).Personalcharacteristicsincollegestudents'evaluationsofbusinessethicsand

corporatesocialresponsibility.JournalofBusinessEthics,10(1),63-69.

Armano,D.(2017,February17).5TypesofActivismEveryBrandShouldPreparefor,EvenIf

You'reNotTakingSides.RetrievedJune21,2017,fromhttp://www.adweek.com/brand-

marketing/5-types-of-activism-every-brand-should-prepare-for-even-if-youre-not-

taking-sides/

Arruda,W.(2016,March28).ThreeStepsForTransformingEmployeesIntoBrand

Ambassadors.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamarruda/2013/10/08/three-steps-for-

transforming-employees-into-brand-ambassadors/#4c1514981040

Banet-Weiser,&Sarah.(2012).AuthenticTM:politicsandambivalenceinabrandculture.New

YorkUniversityPress.

Becchetti,L.,Ciciretti,R.,Hasan,I.,&Kobeissi,N.(2012).Corporatesocialresponsibilityand

shareholder’svalue.JournalofBusinessResearch,65(11),1628–1635.

Becker-olsen,K.L.,Cudmore,B.A.,&Paul,R.(2006).Theimpactofperceivedcorporatesocial

responsibilityonconsumerbehavior,59,46–53.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001

Belch,G.E.,&Belch,M.E.(1987).TheApplicationofanExpectancyValueOperationalizationof

FunctionTheorytoExamineAttitudesofBoycottersandNonboycottersofaConsumer

Product.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,14(1).

CLEMENSEN

58

Bhasin,K.(2017,March07).NordstromIsWinningtheWarOverIvankaTrump.RetrievedJune

20,2017,fromhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-07/backlash-over-

ivanka-trump-didn-t-hurt-nordstrom

Bronn,P.,&Vrioni,A.(2001).CorporateSocialResponsibilityandCausedRelatedMarketing:

AnOverview.InternationalJournalofAdvertising,20,207–222.

Buhrmester,M.,Kwang,T.,&Gosling,S.(2011).Amazon'sMechanicalTurk:ANewSourceof

Inexpensive,YetHigh-Quality,Data?PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience:AJournalof

theAssociationforPsychologicalScience,6(1),3-5.

Carroll,A.(1979).AThree-DimensionalConceptualModelofCorporatePerformance.The

AcademyofManagementReview,4(4),497-505.

Carroll,A.B.(1991),ThePyramidofCorporateSocialResponsibility:TowardstheMoral

ManagementofOrganizationalStakeholders,BusinessHorizons(July/August),39–48.

Carroll,A.B.(1994),SocialIssuesinManagementResearch,BusinessandSociety33(1),5–25.

Carroll,A.(1998).Thefourfacesofcorporatecitizenship.BusinessandSocietyReview,(1001),

1.

Carroll,A.B.(1999),CorporateSocialResponsibility.EvolutionofDefinitionalConstruct,

BusinessandSociety38(3),268–295.

Cause,Influence&theWorkplace:The2015MillennialImpactReport,TheMillennialImpact

Project.Accessed2May2017.

Chang,A.(2017,March31).AppleCEOTimCookisforginganunusualpathasasocialactivist.

LosAngelesTimes.RetrievedMay2,2017,fromhttp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-

tim-cook-20150331-story.html

CLEMENSEN

59

Chong,K.(2017,January20)MillennialsandtheRisingDemandforCorporateSocial

Responsibility.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://cmr.berkeley.edu/blog/2017/1/millennials-and-csr/

Collins,M.(1993)“GlobalCorporatePhilanthropy–MarketingBeyondtheCallofDuty?”,

EuropeanJournalofMarketing,Vol.27Issue:2,pp.46-58.

ConeInc.(2006,April23).The2006ConeMillennialCauseStudy.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.greenbook.org/Content/AMP/Cause_AMPlified.pdf

Creswell,J.,&Abrams,R.(2017,February10).ShoppingBecomesaPoliticalActintheTrump

Era.TheNewYorkTimes.RetrievedMay2,2017,from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/business/nordstrom-

trump.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

Crowdtap&TheAdCouncilReleaseStudyExploringtheChangingFaceofSocialActivism

AmongU.S.Millennials.(2016,July19).BusinessWire,p.BusinessWire,July19,2016.

Dauvergne,P.,&LeBaron,G.(2014).ProtestInc.:thecorporatizationofactivism.Polity.

Davis,K.:1960,CanBusinessAffordtoIgnoreCorporateSocialResponsibilities?,California

ManagementReview2,70–76.

Deloitte.(2016).The2016DeloitteMillennialSurvey.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-

Deloitte/gx-millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf

Demetriou,M.,Papasolomou,I.,&Vrontis,D.(2010).Cause-relatedmarketing:Buildingthe

corporateimagewhilesupportingworthwhilecauses.JournalofBrandManagement,

17(4),266–278.

CLEMENSEN

60

Diermeier,D.(2014,July23).WhenDoCompanyBoycottsWork?RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://hbr.org/2012/08/when-do-company-boycotts-work

Dodd,M.D.,&Supa,D.(2015).TestingtheViabilityofCorporateSocialAdvocacyasaPredictor

ofPurchaseIntention.CommunicationResearchReports,32(4),287–293.

Dodd,M.D.,&Supa,D.W.(2014).Conceptualizingandmeasuring“corporatesocialadvocacy”

communication:Examiningtheimpactoncorporatefinancialperformance.Public

RelationsJournal,8(3).

Doh,P.,Howton,S.,Howton,S.,&Siegel,D.(2010).DoestheMarketRespondtoan

EndorsementofSocialResponsibility?TheRoleofInstitutions,Information,and

Legitimacy.JournalofManagement,36(6),1461-1485.

Eagly,A.H.,&Chaiken,S.(1993).Thepsychologyofattitudes.Orlando,FL:HarcourtBrace

Jovanovich.

Edelman,R.(2015).Whatmatterstomillennials.Accessed2May2017.

Edelman,R.(2016).2016TrustBarometerExecutiveSummary.Accessed2May2017.

Edelman,R.(2017).2017TrustBarometerExecutiveSummary.Accessed2May2017.

Faw,L.(2014,May22).MillennialsExpectMoreThanGoodProducts,ServicesToWinTheir

Loyalty.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larissafaw/2014/05/22/millennials-expect-more-than-

good-products-services-to-win-their-loyalty/#74a762745697

Fazio,R.&Olson,M.(2007).Attitudes:foundations,functions,andconsequences.InM.A.

Hogg&J.CooperTheSAGEhandbookofsocialpsychology:Concisestudentedition(pp.

123-145).London:SAGEPublicationsLtd.

CLEMENSEN

61

Feldmann,D.,Hosea,J.,Ponce,J.,Wall,M.,&Banker,L.(2015).The2015MillennialImpact

Report:Cause,Influence&theNextGenerationWorkforce.

Fishbein,M.,&Ajzen,I.(1975).Belief,attitude,intention,andbehavior:Anintroductionto

theoryandresearch.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Fombrun,C.,&Shanley,M.(1990).What'sinaName?ReputationBuildingandCorporate

Strategy.TheAcademyofManagementJournal,33(2),233-258.

Freeman,D.(2017,February14).ActivistBrands:It'sTimetoTakeaStand.RetrievedJune21,

2017,fromhttp://adage.com/article/agency-viewpoint/time-a-brand-stance/307970/

Fry,R.(2016,April25).MillennialsovertakeBabyBoomersasAmerica’slargestgeneration.

RetrievedJune20,2017,fromhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

Gosling,S.,Vazire,S.,Srivastava,S.,John,O.,&Anderson,NormanB.(2004).ShouldWeTrust

Web-BasedStudies?AmericanPsychologist,59(2),93-104.

Grynbaum,M.,&Maheshwari,S.(2017,April6).AsAngeratO’ReillyBuilds,ActivistsUseSocial

MediatoProdAdvertisers.TheNewYorkTimes.RetrievedMay2,2017,from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/business/media/advertising-activists-social-

media.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

Halzack,S.(2016,August17).Targettospend$20milliononsingle-stallbathroomsafter

backlashtoitsrestroompolicy.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/08/17/target-hit-some-

turbulence-this-summer/?utm_term=.8e27539d46cc

CLEMENSEN

62

Handley,L.(2017,January18).CEOsmustfocusonemployeestogetpeople’strustback:

RichardEdelman.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/17/ceos-must-focus-on-employees-to-get-peoples-

trust-back-richard-edelman.html

Hartenstein,M.(2010,August03).Targetboycottedfordonating$150,000toright-wing

Republican.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/target-boycotted-donating-150-000-mn-

right-wing-republican-tom-emmer-campaign-governor-article-1.200635

Hashtagactivismisn'tjustmillenniallaziness.(2015,September13).UWIREText,p.1.

Herek,G.(1987).CanFunctionsBeMeasured?ANewPerspectiveontheFunctionalApproach

toAttitudes.SocialPsychologyQuarterly,50(4),285-303.Retrievedfrom

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786814

Hoeffler,S.,&Keller,K.L.(2002).BuildingBrandEquityThroughCorporateSocietalMarketing.

JournalofPublicPolicy&Marketing,21(1),78–89.

Hoeffler,S.(2003).Journalofbrandmanagement.TheJournalofBrandManagement(Vol.10).

HenryStewartPublications.

Howard,E.(2014,September24).How'clicktivism'haschangedthefaceofpoliticalcampaigns

|EmmaHoward.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/clicktivism-changed-political-

campaigns-38-degrees-change

CLEMENSEN

63

Hullett,CraigR.,&Boster,FranklinJ.(2001).MatchingMessagestotheValuesUnderlying

Value-ExpressiveandSocial-AdjustiveAttitudes:ReconcilinganOldTheorywitha

ContemporaryMeasurementApproach.CommunicationMonographs,68(2),133-53.

Isidore,C.(2016,August17).Target's$20millionanswertotransgenderbathroomboycott.

RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/17/news/companies/target-bathroom-

transgender/index.html

JagdishN.Sheth,BruceI.Newman,BarbaraL.Gross,Whywebuywhatwebuy:Atheoryof

consumptionvalues,JournalofBusinessResearch,Volume22,Issue2,1991,Pages159-

170,ISSN0148-2963,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8.

Jones,C.,Izzo,M.,&Record,D.(2017,May17).Workandpolitics:Whatrightsdoemployees

have?RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/16/work-and-politics-what-rights-

do-employees-have/101753060/

Katz,D.(2008).Thefunctionalapproachtothestudyofattitudes.Attitudes:TheirStructure,

Function,andConsequences,24(2,SpecialIssue:AttitudeChange),221–229.

Landrum,S.(2017,March17).MillennialsDrivingBrandsToPracticeSociallyResponsible

Marketing.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahlandrum/2017/03/17/millennials-driving-brands-

to-practice-socially-responsible-marketing/#b0592354990b

Lapinski,M.,&Boster,F.(2001).ModelingtheEgo-DefensiveFunctionofAttitudes.

CommunicationMonographs,68(3),314-24.

CLEMENSEN

64

Legraien,L.(2017,February02).Generationquiet:Whymillennialsarerejectingtheoutdoor

protest.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/millennials-generation-y-quie-

polite-activism-protest-streets-activism-twitter-facebook-ice-bucket-a7559801.html

Lutz,J.(1981).AReconceptualizationoftheFunctionalApproachtoAttitudes,Researchin

Marketing.JagdishSheth(ed.).Vol.7,Greenwich:JAI

PressInc.,165-210.

Matten,D.,Crane,A.,&Chapple,W.(2003),BehinddeMask:RevealingtheTrueFaceof

CorporateCitizenship,JournalofBusinessEthics45(1–2),109–120.

Matten,D.,&Crane,A.(2005)CorporateCitizenship:TowardsanExtendedTheoretical

Conceptualization,AcademyofManagementReview.

McDermott,M.(2017,March14).BrandActivism:ShouldBrandsGetPolitical?|ANA.

RetrievedJune21,2017,fromhttp://www.ana.net/magazines/show/id/ana-2017-03-

brand-activism

McGlone,Teresa,Spain,JudithWinters,&McGlone,Vernon.(2011).CorporateSocial

ResponsibilityandtheMillennials.JournalofEducationforBusiness,86(4),195-200.

Millennials’AdvicetoBrands:TakeAuthenticStancesonSocialIssues.(2017).PRNews,PR

News,Feb27,2017.

Mintel,(n.d.).Buydeology.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://academic.mintel.com.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/trends/#/trend/239407

CLEMENSEN

65

Mintel,(n.d.).MoralBrands.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://academic.mintel.com.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/trends/#/trend/277240?application=h:1

2,m:824071

Mohr,L.A.,Webb,D.J.,&Harris,K.E.(2001).DoConsumersExpectCompaniestobeSocially

Responsible?TheImpactofCorporateSocialResponsibilityonBuyingBehavior,35(1),

45–72.

Monllos,K.(2017,April5).PepsiPullsItsMuch-HatedKendallJennerAd,SayingIt‘Missedthe

Mark’.ADWEEK.RetrievedMay2,2017,fromhttp://www.adweek.com/brand-

marketing/pepsi-pulls-its-much-hated-kendall-jenner-ad-saying-it-missed-the-mark/

Ng,E.S.W.,Schweitzer,L.,&Lyons,S.T.(2010).NewGeneration,GreatExpectations:AField

StudyoftheMillennialGeneration,281–292.http://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-

4

Nielsen.(2015,October).GlobalSustainabilityReport.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/dk/docs/global-sustainability-

report-oct-2015.pdf

Nielsen.(2017,September).GlobalTrustinAdvertising.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2015/nielsen-

global-trust-in-advertising-report-september-2015.pdf

O’Connor,C.(2014,March19).Chick-fil-ACEOCathy:GayMarriageStillWrong,ButI'llShutUp

AboutItAndSellChicken.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/03/19/chick-fil-a-ceo-cathy-gay-

marriage-still-wrong-but-ill-shut-up-about-it-and-sell-chicken/#31f816822fcb

CLEMENSEN

66

Pickens,J.(2005).AttitudesandPerceptions.OrganizationalBehaviorinHealthCare,43–75.

Ponnu,C.H.(2012).Influenceoffirmbehavioronpurchaseintention:DoMalaysianconsumers

reallycareaboutbusinessethics?ActualProblemsofEconomics,135(9),445–456.

Pseudoactivismplaguesmillennialgeneration.(2014,October13).UWIREText,p.1.

Richson:Thetroublewithbrandactivism.(2014,December18).UWIREText,p.1.

Romani,S.,Grappi,S.,Zarantonello,L.,&Bagozzi,R.P.(2015).Therevengeoftheconsumer!

Howbrandmoralviolationsleadtoconsumeranti-brandactivism.JournalofBrand

Management,22(8),658–672.

Satran,J.(2013,January31).Chick-Fil-ASalesSoarIn2012DespiteBadPR.RetrievedJune20,

2017,fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/chick-fil-a-sales-

2012_n_2590612.html

Saxton,&Loren.(2015).HASHTAGLUNCHBAGD.C.:Millennials,SocialMedia,andActivism.

WashingtonInformer,50(19),4A.

Scherer,S.(2013,September27).Barillapastabaron'santi-gaycommentpromptsboycottcall.

RetrievedJune21,2017,fromhttp://www.nbcnews.com/business/barilla-pasta-barons-

anti-gay-comment-prompts-boycott-call-8c11269315

Sears,D.O.(1986).Collegesophomoresinthelab:Influencesofanarrowdatabaseonsocial

psychology’sviewofhumannature.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,51,

515–530.

Shavitt,S.(1990).Theroleofattitudeobjectsinattitudefunctions.JournalofExperimental

SocialPsychology,26,124-148.

CLEMENSEN

67

Shavitt,S.,&Nelson,M.R.(2002).Theroleofattitudefunctionsinpersuasionandsocial

judgment.InJ.P.Dillard&M.Pfau(Eds.),Thepersuasionhandbook:Developmentsin

theoryandpractice(pp.137-153).ThousandOaks,CA:SAGE.

Sherif,M.,Cantril,H.,&Langfeld,HerbertS.(1945).Thepsychologyof‘attitudes’:PartI.

PsychologicalReview,52(6),295-319.

Sherif,M.,Cantril,H.,&Langfeld,HerbertS.(1946).Thepsychologyof‘attitudes’:PartII.

PsychologicalReview,53(1),1-24.

Solomon,B.(2016,November10).GrubHubCEOAttacksTrump,TellsEmployeesWith'Hateful

Attitudes'ToResign.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/11/10/grubhub-ceo-attacks-donald-

trump-employees-hateful-attitudes-resign-matt-maloney/#3cd29ad59ef0

Stein,L.(2017).HowandwhenbrandsshouldjumpintoTrump-chargedissues.Advertising

Age,88(3),0005.

Taylor,K.(2017,January30).PeopleareboycottingStarbucksafterCEOannouncesplantohire

thousandsofrefugees.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-boycott-after-ceos-refugee-support-2017-1

TheForumforSustainableandResponsibleInvestment.(2016).2016ReportonUSSustainable,

ResponsibleandImpactInvestingTrends.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://www.ussif.org/store_product.asp?prodid=32

JWTIntelligence.(2016,November).ThePoliticalConsumer.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.jwtintelligence.com/trend-reports/the-political-consumer/

CLEMENSEN

68

Torelli,C.J.,Monga,A.B.,&Kaikati,A.M.(2012).DoingPoorlybyDoingGood:CorporateSocial

ResponsibilityandBrandConcepts.JournalofConsumerResearch,38(5),948–963.

TrustandtheCEO:AGlobalPerspective.(2016).RetrievedJune20,2017,from

http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2016-edelman-trust-

barometer/state-of-trust/trust-ceo-global-perspective/

Victor,D.(2017,January12).TrumpTweetAboutL.L.BeanUnderscoresPotentialDangerfor

Brands.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/linda-bean-ll-bean-boycott.html

U.S.CensusBureau(2016).Population.RetrievedJune20,2017,from

https://www.census.gov/topics/population.html

Wang,X.(2012).TheRoleofAttitudeFunctionsandSelf-MonitoringinPredictingIntentionsto

RegisterasOrganDonorsandtoDiscussOrganDonationWithFamily.Communication

Research,39(1),26–47.

Weinzimmer,L.G.,&Esken,C.A.(2016).Riskybusiness:Takingastandonsocialissues.

BusinessHorizons,59(3),331–337.

Westberg,K.(2002).TheEffectofCorporateSocietalMarketingonConsumerAttitudes:A

ComparisonofStrategies.

CLEMENSEN

69

APPENDIXConsentForm: Youareinvitedtobeinaresearchstudyaboutcompaniesandpoliticalopinions.Pleasereadthisformandcontacttheresearcherwithanyquestionsyoumayhavebeforebeginningthisstudy. Thisstudyisbeingconductedby: MaggieClemensen,StrategicCommunicationMaster'sCandidate,SchoolofJournalismandMassCommunication,UniversityofMinnesota,cleme253@umn.edu Youcanalsocontacttheacademicadvisor,Dr.StaceyKanihanatskanihan@umn.edu Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcernsregardingthisstudyandwouldliketotalktosomeoneotherthantheresearcher(s),youareencouragedtocontacttheResearchSubjects’AdvocateLine,D528Mayo,420DelawareSt.Southeast,Minneapolis,Minnesota55455;(612)625-1650. Procedure: Ifyouagreetoparticipateinthisstudy,youwillbeaskedtocompleteasurveyquestionnaireaboutcompaniesandpoliticalopinions.Youwillalsobeaskedtoprovidesomedemographicinformation.Thesurveywilltakeabout10-20minutestocomplete. Risksandbenefitsofbeinginthisstudy: Thereisnoparticularriskassociatedwiththisstudy. Confidentiality: Theinformationyouprovideinthissurveywillbekeptprivate.Onlytheresearcherwillhaveaccesstotherecords.Dataincludedinthefinalreportwillnotincludeanyinformationthatwouldmakeitpossibletoidentifyastudysubject. Voluntarynatureofthestudy: Participationinthisstudyisvoluntary.YourdecisionnottoparticipatewillnotimpactyourstandingwithMechanicalTurk.Ifyoudecidetoparticipate,youarefreetonotansweranyquestionortowithdrawfromthestudyatanytime.Thankyouinadvanceforyourparticipation.

CLEMENSEN

70

SurveyQuestions:CompaniesandPoliticalStancesS1.Inourcurrentpoliticalenvironment,companieshavestartedtoopenlyexpresstheirpoliticalpositions.Someexamplesincludecompaniesvoicingopinionsonthetopicsofgaymarriage,immigrationreform,orsupportofapoliticalcandidate.Q1.Howlikelywouldyoubetostopbuyingtheproductofacertaincompanybecauseofapoliticalstatementthatcompanyhadmade?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

VeryUnlikely:VeryLikely(1)

m m m m m

Q2.Howoftendoyouintentionallypurchaseproductsfromcompaniesthathavetakenastanceonapoliticalissuethatyouagreewith?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

Never:Often(1) m m m m m

Q3.Howoftendoyouintentionallynotpurchaseproductsfromcompaniesthathavetakenastanceonapoliticalissuethatyoudisagreewith?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

Never:Often(1) m m m m m

Q4.Wheredoyoumostoftenseecompaniestakingapoliticalstand?m Socialmedia(1)m Newsmediachannels(onlinenews,TVnews,radionews,newspapers)(2)m Advertising(newspaper,magazine,TV,oronline)(3)m Companymaterials(websiteorprintedmaterials)(4)m Other(5)____________________

CLEMENSEN

71

Q5.Doyouthinkofcompaniesaspolitically“conservative”or“liberal”?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

Notatall:Verymuchso(1) m m m m m

Q6.Ifacompanytakesapoliticalstancethatyoudisagreewith,howlikelyareyoutodiscourageothersfrompurchasingfromthatcompany?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

VeryUnlikely:VeryLikely(1)

m m m m m

Q7.Ifacompanytakesastandonanissueissupportiveofyourpoliticalviews,wouldyouwouldbewillingtopaymoreforthecompany’sproductsorservices?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

Notatall:Verymuchso(1) m m m m m

Q8.Inyouropinion,shouldcompaniestakeapoliticalposition?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

Notatall:Verymuchso(1) m m m m m

Q9.WhatisyouropinionofCEOswhotakeastandonapoliticalissue?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

Veryunfavorable:Veryfavorable(1)

m m m m m

Q10.Underwhatcircumstancesdoyouthinkcompaniesshouldtakeapoliticalstand?

CLEMENSEN

72

Q11.Imagineifacompany’spoliticalstanceconflictswithyourown.Howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatements:

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

Thiscompany’sbeliefsthreatenmybeliefs(1) m m m m m

Thiscompany’spositionmakesmefeelbetteraboutnotbuyingitsproduct.(2)

m m m m m

Thiscompany’spositionhelpsmediscourageothersfrombuyingit.(3)

m m m m m

Becauseofthiscompany’spoliticalstance,notbuyingitsproductcontributesto

myidentityinmysocialgroup.(4)

m m m m m

Becauseofthiscompany’spoliticalstance,notbuyingitsproductmakesmefeelbetterabout

myself.(5)

m m m m m

Byknowingwherethiscompanystandsonanissue,Ihaveabetterunderstandingofmypositiononthatissue.

(6)

m m m m m

CLEMENSEN

73

Q12.Imagineifacompany’spoliticalstancealignswithyourown.Howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatements:

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

Thiscompanyishelpingmetoactonmypoliticalvalues.(1)

m m m m m

Thiscompany’spoliticalstancemakesmefeelbetteraboutbuyingitsproduct.(2)

m m m m m

Becauseofthiscompany’s

politicalstance,buyingitsproductcontributestomyidentityinmysocialgroup.(3)

m m m m m

Becauseofthiscompany’s

politicalstance,buyingitsproductmakesmefeelgoodaboutmyself.(4)

m m m m m

Byknowingwherethiscompanystandsonanissue,Ihavea

betterunderstandingofmyownpositiononthatissue.(5)

m m m m m

Q13.Howwouldyoucharacterizeyourpoliticalviews?m Veryliberal(1)m Liberal(2)m Slightlyliberal(3)m Moderate(4)m Slightlyconservative(5)m Conservative(6)m VeryConservative(7)

CLEMENSEN

74

Q14.Whatisyourcurrentage?m 18-19(1)m 20-36(2)m 37-52(3)m 53-71(4)Q15.Whatgenderdoyoumostidentifywith?m Male(1)m Female(2)m Transgendermale(3)m Transgenderfemale(4)m Gendervariant/non-conforming(5)m Notlisted(6)____________________